With 34 replies this assumes at best a 17% error on the results. Now if there were biases in the respondents and or survey the error could be much higher which means this survey tells us nothing... no shock.
A network news political poll usually has thousands of respondents, done as objectively as possible, and it still has 4% error.
The data on the website is nearly a decade old. There science was "sounder" back in 1998. Most who were skeptics then have become less skeptical (from perhaps 75-25 to 95-5) because these natural cycles that have occured in the last 150 years are no longer occurring. The last eight years (which were not included in the oism analysis) have contained six of the hottest years in the past 150 years. It is good to be skeptical in science but how long does one wait for a downturn (in either CO2 or temperature) before throwing in the towel? The derivative of these graphs have also increased at an alarming rate since 2000
Slashdot Mirror
With 34 replies this assumes at best a 17% error on the results. Now if there were biases in the respondents and or survey the error could be much higher which means this survey tells us nothing... no shock. A network news political poll usually has thousands of respondents, done as objectively as possible, and it still has 4% error.
The data on the website is nearly a decade old. There science was "sounder" back in 1998. Most who were skeptics then have become less skeptical (from perhaps 75-25 to 95-5) because these natural cycles that have occured in the last 150 years are no longer occurring. The last eight years (which were not included in the oism analysis) have contained six of the hottest years in the past 150 years. It is good to be skeptical in science but how long does one wait for a downturn (in either CO2 or temperature) before throwing in the towel? The derivative of these graphs have also increased at an alarming rate since 2000