--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > Of course, new.morning's questions are based on a > misunderstanding of how the survey was conducted,
Since you are a stickler for correctness, I did not misunderstand how the survey was conducted. It appears to have been a telephone or e-mail survey and I am familiar their hows -- and have been involved with such. But I believed I knew what you meant, which is that I "misunderstood" -- actually misassumed -- that the 100 was sampling of the larger population of climate experts. > so > they aren't valid. I don't have my questions in front of me, but I as I recall them, they are valid regardless of my assumptions of whether the survey was a sample of all climate experts, or a total polling of the so called "top 100". Frankly, on the latter point, I don't think a valid top 100 list could well be constructed -- such lists typically are much more a political prestige, lobbying thing. So regardless, I would take 100 'known, have a publicist, are on a contact for quotes list'-- type climate scientists as a sample of a larger group of competent climate scientists in many fields who actually make up the day to day findings of climate science -- and whose broader representation, IMO, is necessary to see where the field actually stands. Ideally, lots of supporting data on each scientist in the sample would be highly insightful to allow breaking down the sample via cross-tabs on and regressions including information on who they recieve funding from, how many lead and other authorships of relevant papers in the fieled they have published, the caliber of such journals, their education, current university or reserch affiliation, current research budgets for which they have direct management, etc. This would allow one to break down the concensus(es) among the real movers and shakers who are not funded by strongly biased sourses. >But I'm sure that's exactly the > kinds of questions those reflexively opposed to the > consensus view on global warming would attempt to > raise, in order to confuse the issue as much as > possible. And as my example testifies, that's ALSO exactly the kinds of questions asked by those who support the consensus view on global warming, and have since working on the issue professional in 1990-92. And I raised such, without partisian intent, but to gain understand. Ironically, the points I raised, in my view, subject to further clarification of the "sample", minimized shemps POV that the AP story was misleading. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
