You might have included the time dimension. The ice cores suggest that if there is a warming effect from a major increase in CO2 levels it occurs some years later (900 years?). So I think that you have posed a question that is somewhat like "have you stopped beating your wife?" and limiting my answer to "no, just a little, etc."
This reply is directed at the inherent difficulty of designing poll questions that have any chance of gathering useful information from respondents. So what difference does it make in regard to the respondent's grasp of engineering or scientific issues in answering questions that, because of the inherent format of a poll, cannot allow an answer that accurately reflects one's understanding?
On the other hand, polls are kind of fun, and maybe harmless as long as appropriate caution is exercised in interpreting the findings. .
Laura - 14 years ago
Comment #1 annoys me because if we were discussing ANY other topic this condescending attitude toward the public would be irrelevant.If this were a poll asking about getting a flu shot,whether smoking causes ephysema, or if the MMR really causes autism, how useful would asking how many had a medical background? The CDC, AMA, APA, WebMD, etc have websites providing their latest data and recommendations.The theory of AGW is not that difficult to understand.Our opinion about it reflects whether there is credible evidence supporting it. With over a decade of temperatures slightly decreasing, the Arctic sea ice quickly recovering, and the resistance to provide current data by the "experts"who claim the science is settled, the average citizen is perfectly capable of forming legitimate doubts.
I'm pleased that with your science background, we still agree. But this is the demeaning approach the proponents have brow-beaten us with so much that we've become suspicious.
Stephen Greener - 14 years ago
Comment #1 is interesting. I have a background of multi engineering disciplines but probably rather weaker than the writer of #1 in thermal matters. I had wondered if the lack of hot spot in the upper troposphere really is the death knell for the GH warming gas thesis also repudiated by a recent German paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics; find here >> http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory. As I see it the majority assumption of the skeptics (as per this poll) is that there might be some atmospheric greenhouse effect but that it is 1/5th to 1/7th of what the IPCC says it is; thus about o.7/8 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. this would clearly be pretty anodyne. It would be just amazing if even this last small concession of principle was eventually shot out from under the alarmists as with almost every other assertion they have aver made. (Also look at all the official fiddling with the surface temperature records coming pouring out with every day).
Cementafriend - 14 years ago
It would have been useful if the voters had also been asked if they have a scientific or technology background.
I have knowledge and experience in heat transfer (particularly combustion & radiation) which is at the heart of the AGW hypothesis. I voted no effect (measurable or insignificant).
You might have included the time dimension. The ice cores suggest that if there is a warming effect from a major increase in CO2 levels it occurs some years later (900 years?). So I think that you have posed a question that is somewhat like "have you stopped beating your wife?" and limiting my answer to "no, just a little, etc."
This reply is directed at the inherent difficulty of designing poll questions that have any chance of gathering useful information from respondents. So what difference does it make in regard to the respondent's grasp of engineering or scientific issues in answering questions that, because of the inherent format of a poll, cannot allow an answer that accurately reflects one's understanding?
On the other hand, polls are kind of fun, and maybe harmless as long as appropriate caution is exercised in interpreting the findings. .
Comment #1 annoys me because if we were discussing ANY other topic this condescending attitude toward the public would be irrelevant.If this were a poll asking about getting a flu shot,whether smoking causes ephysema, or if the MMR really causes autism, how useful would asking how many had a medical background? The CDC, AMA, APA, WebMD, etc have websites providing their latest data and recommendations.The theory of AGW is not that difficult to understand.Our opinion about it reflects whether there is credible evidence supporting it. With over a decade of temperatures slightly decreasing, the Arctic sea ice quickly recovering, and the resistance to provide current data by the "experts"who claim the science is settled, the average citizen is perfectly capable of forming legitimate doubts.
I'm pleased that with your science background, we still agree. But this is the demeaning approach the proponents have brow-beaten us with so much that we've become suspicious.
Comment #1 is interesting. I have a background of multi engineering disciplines but probably rather weaker than the writer of #1 in thermal matters. I had wondered if the lack of hot spot in the upper troposphere really is the death knell for the GH warming gas thesis also repudiated by a recent German paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics; find here >> http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory. As I see it the majority assumption of the skeptics (as per this poll) is that there might be some atmospheric greenhouse effect but that it is 1/5th to 1/7th of what the IPCC says it is; thus about o.7/8 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. this would clearly be pretty anodyne. It would be just amazing if even this last small concession of principle was eventually shot out from under the alarmists as with almost every other assertion they have aver made. (Also look at all the official fiddling with the surface temperature records coming pouring out with every day).
It would have been useful if the voters had also been asked if they have a scientific or technology background.
I have knowledge and experience in heat transfer (particularly combustion & radiation) which is at the heart of the AGW hypothesis. I voted no effect (measurable or insignificant).