Scotsman: Mike Haseler: No place for name-calling in debate

Posted: March 4, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics


In The Scotsman

A recent survey of those participating in online forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals, most degree-qualified and around a third with post-graduate qualifications.

The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO² and the effect it might have on global temperatures.

The results were surprising: 96 per cent of respondents said that atmospheric CO² levels are increasing, with 79 per cent attributing the increase to man-made sources. Eighty-one per cent agreed global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81 per cent also agreed that CO² is a warming gas. But only 2 per cent believed that increases in CO² would cause catastrophic global warming.

So what’s going on? Above all, these highly qualified people – experts in their own spheres – look at the published data and…

View original post 203 more words

  1. Me_Again says:

    Love to see the actual questions…………..

  2. Guam says:

    I filled in this survey (part of the Post Grad section), and I would concur overall with their findings, interesting on how almost no one accepts the “alarmist” nonsense, rational thinkers eh what you going to do with them!

  3. michael hart says:

    I filled it in. It was fairly widely circulated on sceptical blogs I frequent, so someone has probably got a copy.

    It got some criticisms, largely, in my opinion, because of the ambiguity in some of the questions which could have been phrased in a more careful fashion. I know I examined the wording very carefully before committing to an answer, which seemed slightly unsatisfactory in a few cases. There was one question I refused to answer for this reason, and added a comment to that effect in the section provided.

    I’m sure Mike Haseler tried to make it as good as he could, but first running the questions by some people from different technical backgrounds might have improved it. (Perhaps he did? I dunno.)

    I can certainly believe the information about peoples’ educational qualifications based on my reading comments regularly at about six sceptical blogs.

  4. I commented thus at Scottishsceptic
    “I completed the survey. In contrast to so-called climate scientists as an engineer I have actual experience with heat transfer in different applications. CO2 does absorb some heat energy at a very narrow wavelength centred on14.8 micron but in the atmosphere with a concentration of 400 ppm (volume) the amount of energy absorbed is unmeasurable. One can make calculations using the empirical formula derived by Prof Hoyt Hottel from vast amount of data in heat exchangers (see for example Perry’s Chemical Engineering handbook or Mark’s Mechanical Engineering Handbook) which will show the insignificant absorptivity upto 8kms of atmospheric height. Further, any tiny increase energy is converted to movement of the atmosphere or is radiated to space and can not be transferred back to a surface which is at a higher temperature.
    Let me add that heat & mass transfer is an engineering subject which scientists and physicists have little or no understanding. Let me ask has anyone seen mention of the Nusselt number ( in an article concerning global warming or so called global energy budgets?”