Yahoo News has already ran with the results. We all know who is running SkepticalScience. Do ya think there's a concerned effort on deceiving the public anywhere in this survey? Good explanation Mike!
--------------------------------------
Let's remember that skepticalscience.com is and always will be a biased "blog" that seams to be the main church of scientology that perpetuates "Global Warming/Climate Change" alarmist propaganda. Did John Travolta and Tom Cruise become ordained ministers there? There's nothing skeptical about skepticalscience.com!
--------------------------------------
gcnp58 - You base your expertise on less than 3/4ths of a degree rise in over 130 years of fossil fuel use by humans (and that number is going down again). You nit-pick at evidence that shows why there is nothing catastrophic with raised CO2 levels. Most all of the catastrophic events that climate science has predicted over the years has fallen way short of expectations. That makes you an expert at nothing. We are dealing with a chaotic and unpredictable system that no scientist can predict. The IP CC has the best computer modeling system in the world and they can't get it right either. They keep saying they need a bigger computer to accurately predict the future. How much does that $100 billion buy the IP CC that the U.S. just sent them? Same ol' BS from the same people here! Get over yourself! You're not that smart or the whole world would be listening to you and bowing at your intelligence. Guess what? They aren't!
I did not keep track, but all of my responses were that all 10 of the abstracts either explicitly or implicitly accepted the science of AGW.
Maxx --
There are not any questions, nitwit. I realize that your opposition to knowledge prohibits you from reading even abstracts written by professionals, but I didn't realize just how serious your reading comprehension disability was. It's just a little test to see how a sample of the papers they examined would be scored by different people.
=====
George --
You wouldn't if your objective to be as stupid as humanly possible. At least you seem to be good at something.
I looked at it and it's not really a survey, it's more of a propaganda technique. It's questions are designed to only affirm man-made Global Warming and to prevent the gathering of any information that might go against their Church of man-made Global Warming dogma.
Once the 'survey' is complete the religious Warmists at SkepticalScience.com will be able to crow that not a single response disagreed with the idea of man-made Global Warming. Of course they won't mention the fact that the 'survey' was set-up in such a way that disagreement was literally not an option.
---------------------------
You are correct Mike. None of these abstracts state the cause of global warming, They should all be answered "Neutral."
I gave 6 neutrals, 1 explicit non quantified acceptance, 2 implicit acceptances and 1 explicit non quantified rejection.
Then, in the light of other comments, (especially gcnp's) I went back to the survey to check again, and found a completely different list of abstracts.
This, of course, renders all comments on others ratings meaningless!
But anyway, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
The abstract for paper #8 clearly quantifies the role of solar forcing as below 10% for the early 20th century and 0% from 1980 onwards. To me that seems to be fairly explicit in its support of CO2-derived warming since you have to be one of the truly delusional wackjobs to think it's anything but solar or CO2. The abstract for paper #5 is pretty definitive as well, and whether you want to rank that as implicit support or explicit support without quantification is a subjective judgement, but calling it "neutral" is stupid.
I have to say though, your assessments aren't surprising, given your (and all the other skeptics) supremely low level of technical expertise.
Is the site that desperate for hits?
it's nonsense , they're all clearly neutral. I don't understand what they think they are trying to survey
Here is the page that describes this effort and a link to the actual survey: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1996&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I did the survey of 10 abstracts in about 3 minutes. Every single one (all 10) I rated "Neutral". None had anything to do with attribution of warming.
If you do the survey post what your ratings were. Also post what you think is going to come out of this latest project? (recognize the university??)
