/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8589435
>Just read through the surveys, thank you. I'm more convinced than ever now, that the science is not in.
Verheggen et al., Powell, Cook et al., Farnsworth and Lichter, Anderegg et al., Zimmerman and Zimmerman, STATS, and Oreskes all surveyed geoscientists as a group and found stunning (~90%) agreement. But you've decided to focus in on Lefsrud and Meyer, which surveyed ONLY petroleum geologists in Alberta (a province heavily dependent on the petroleum industry) and found that there was substantial disagreement among them.
The rational conclusion to draw would be either "this study is an outlier" or (IMO more correctly) "petroleum geologists in Alberta have different views from climatologists, or from geoscientists as a whole". But instead you've disingenuously chosen to cherry-pick it as representative of climatology as a whole.

Did you expect to fool anyone?

>>8589444
>In a court of law it would be called leading the witnesses.
in polling it's called a "push poll". care to point out any wording in ANY of those surveys' methodologies that you think constitutes a "push poll"?

>>7643853
>can't read the source clearly provided in helpful and convenient greentext
>thinks I don't know what the United States Climate Reference Network is
>bitches don't know bout my geoscience degree

hey, where was your outrage when all these deniers posted unsourced bullshit earlier in the thread?
>>7629941
>>7632394
>>7633275
>>7633471
>>7633496
>>7638462
>>7638471
>>7638473
>>7642153
>>7642428
>>7643152
>>7643182

>>7629479
/thread
at least you didn't stick it in your ass