97% vs. 30,000

[SoutherDem]

Yesterday on Science Friday a caller challenged the claim of the National Academy of Science report which states that 97% of climate scientists state that climate change is real and man made using a petition submitted by 30,000 scientists who don't feel climate change is real or if it is not man made. Once you look at both claims the report by National Academy of Science is a survey of climate scientist who would by anyone's standard be considered experts on the subject. However, of the 30,000 signing members of the petition are from multiple disciplines, of which 579 (.5%) are considered atmospheric scientists and only 39 are climatologist (.1%). Also, the groups which circulated the petition were a self proclaimed instate of science and a organization backed by Exxon. Why is it acceptable to dispute legitimate surveys of real experts with a misleading petition distributed to non experts and backed by industry?

[WhiteTara]

1. Lie Cheat Steal is the Corporate Way.n/t

[immoderate]

2. It is a retread of the "teach the controversy" tactic used by oil companies,...

...tobacco companies, and creationists. It's the down side of free speech -- the protection of stupid speech, and the rights of the dim to be persuaded. If the speech is truly free, it is theorized, it is ultimately self correcting, (as is science.)

It's a Catch-22, the controversies are bogus, but play into liberal principles, which gives everyone a chance to present their case. Then convince some people that their misery is a result of government regulation, and you've got a constituency.

And don't discount the significant portion of people who will adopt any position that will oppose liberalism.

I even know a couple of guys who (I have forced to) acknowledge the science, and yet they insist that government should not be allowed to infringe on the "rights" of the oil companies.

The radio station, and all media, are looking for a story. Sometimes there isn't one. The wackos fill the gap. Nature meet vacuum. :)

--imm