Skip to content
I am a meteorologist with a master's degree and 12 years experience in the field. I have worked on weather models, especially those dealing with cloud dynamics. I am one of those dissenters who believes that global warming is solely caused by man. I am currently writing a paper on finding common ground between skeptics and hysterics in order to promote sound, good-stewardship practices and policies regarding the environment.
However, I am disappointed with the sloppiness of your article. If you take a close look at the supporting information, the 472 number given only refers to the number of dissenters. Earlier in the document it references ~900 supporters of man-made global warming, for a combined total of 1372. When critiquing issues such as global warming and evolution, it is critical that our analysis be above reproach, or their supporters will pick us apart and blame our error on either a lack of knowledge/expertise relevant to the issue (much as the report does) or broadcast it as a blatant lie to mislead the public.
That said, I agree with your overall analysis for a few reasons. 1) 900/1372 is not 97%... if those are the numbers they used, the correct percentage is ~65%. I would want to look closer to see which of the 472 dissenters were suddenly converted to the mainstream. 2) Like you, I laughed at the criteria for expertise: if there was a consistent effort to limit skeptical research from being published (which was evident during the climategate scandal) then the criteria is biased and has been artificially manipulated by those who support man-made global warming. 3) "Scientific research" conducted for the sole purpose of propaganda is junk science and overtly biased. There is research that show strong efforts to manipulate the data to support one's own stance and to adjust the research so results become more in line with that stance. 4) Finally, there is an online petition of scientists with 97,000+ signatories with advanced degrees in meteorology, biology, geology, and a host of other fields relevant to climate science research. Why not use those names? Maybe because that would overwhelm their 900-strong group of accepted experts.
More information about formatting options
Copyright 2014 Creation Moments. All Rights Reserved.
August Ash, Inc. -
Minneapolis Web Design