Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The two Wikipedia articles have been presented to you on numerous occasions. Have you never even reviewed them? Please do so.
I guess we can now conclude that you are fully aware there were numerous other polls, surveys and studies, with larger sample sizes, that arrived at essentially the exact same conclusion. However, despite that awareness, you choose to continue commenting solely about Doran.
So, aside from the fact that you obviously lack the familiarity with statistics that would tell you Doran's results have significance (your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies" tells us you've never had a statistics class in your life), you want to pretend that those other studies don't exist. That is, you choose to be dishonest.
I guess we can now conclude that you are fully aware there were numerous other polls, surveys and studies, with larger sample sizes, that arrived at essentially the exact same conclusion. However, despite that awareness, you choose to continue commenting solely about Doran.
So, aside from the fact that you obviously lack the familiarity with statistics that would tell you Doran's results have significance (your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies" tells us you've never had a statistics class in your life), you want to pretend that those other studies don't exist. That is, you choose to be dishonest.
So YOU choose to ignore surveys of thousands of scientists. Got it.
Doran didn't ignore any of this replies. He categorized them according to each respondent's demographic information. The 75 out of 79 were clearly identified as being "actively publishing climate scientists". Those not included in that number did not meet that criteria.
Do you really find that so difficult to follow? Or is it that you don't want to?
ADDENDUM:
Can you agree that of all the people that responded to Doran's survey, those 79 were the most qualified to speak to questions regarding the climate?
On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?
What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?
On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?
What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?
What is the definition of "Significant Factor"?
Based on emails talking about suppression of opposing viewpoints, I won't agree that only active publishers are qualified.
On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?
What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?
What is the definition of "Significant Factor"?
Taken out of context, I haven't the faintest idea.
Based on emails talking about suppression of opposing viewpoints, I won't agree that only active publishers are qualified.
A single statement is made in a single email that suggests one climate scientist would like to see opposing views not get published. Do you have any OTHER reason - any OTHER evidence - for assuming that NO opposing viewpoints get published in any science journal on the planet?
You have no intention of treating this issue honestly, do you.