Quote:
|
Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
|
Is that the part your refering to? if 3/11 of the thirty were legit that would come to around 200 yes but how do you account for the 3 that said they don't remember and five who were just to afraid to pick up the phone? sounds like there being terrorised..
And what about the 2,660 scientists in the list trained in psysical or enviromental sciences? or the ~4000 scientists trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences? do these not count as the scientific community because there not undergoing active research in the field?
This petition even though a decent chunk of its crap is still large and shows what the scientific communisty really thinks. More than what we can say for the IPCC consensus:
Quote:
|
How did the IPCC come up with 2,500 scientists? If one were to add up all contributors and reviewers listed in the three IPCC reports published in 1996, one would count about 2,100. The great majority of these are not conversant with the intricacies of atmospheric physics, although some may know a lot about forestry, fisheries or agriculture. Most are social scientists -- or just policy experts and government functionaries. Every country in the world seems to be represented -- from Albania to Zimbabwe -- though many are not exactly at the forefront of research. The list even includes known skeptics of global warming -- much to their personal and professional chagrin.
|
source:
http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/hotair.html
Quote:
|
Then Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, weighed in. He had once again been a lead author of a Report chapter. He scoffed at the idea that the Summaries for Policymakers represented a consensus of scientists. “The truth is”, he said, “that we are not even asked”. Lindzen then gave a public lecture showing how the Summary had misrepresented what the scientists had said, and exaggerated the authority of “undistinguished scientists” who backed the IPCC line.
|
Quote:
|
Several other top scientists who had contributed to the scientific part of the IPCC Report echoed these criticisms. This follows a pattern which can be observed over the past decade. The IPCC claims scientists world-wide agree with its alarmist predictions. But only a handful of these scientists ever appear, and they are almost invariably dependent on government greenhouse budgets for their livelihood. By contrast, really top experts who have genuine independence are often scathing about the greenhouse scare.
|
source:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/consensus.htm
paid out much?