12 apr. 2010

Overwhelming majority of Swedish climate researchers back consensus view on climate change

Swedish television news program Rapport asked Swedish researchers working on climate change if they believed that global warming and human impact thereon were proven and a whopping 97 % of the researchers answered yes. 87 % of the researchers still have confidence in IPCC and the conclusions of the IPCC’s latest report compared to 3 % who does not have confidence in IPCC. A small minority of 6 % have changed their view (in either direction) on IPCC since last autumn.

Two of three researchers also said that the Swedish media had exaggerated the errors in the IPCC report and the Climate gate (swift hack) story. And let me assure you that the media coverage in Sweden have not been nearly as bad as in the UK on these two subjects.

The selection of scientists was made by using Thomson Reuters database ISI entering “global climate change” as search word and then selecting Swedish researchers having published on that subject during 2009-2010. This gave 87 researchers and 69 answered the questions.

The questions and answers are found here

Update, more information on the results:
Regarding the question about those who have changed their view about IPCC:

- 3 percent says that they have changed their opinion about their confidence in the main conclusions in the AR4-report. Of those 3 percent all now says they have confidence in AR4.

- 6 percent says they have changed their opinion about their confidence in IPCC as an organization. Three quarters of those 6 percent now says they have confidence in IPCC as an organization, and one quarter now answers "don't know".

- None of the 3 percent who now says that they do not have confidence in IPCC as an organization have changed their mind since the autumn.

SVT, science department

31 kommentarer:

  1. Thanks for the insight. I liked the stat on the percentage of scientists who had changed their views; do you have any info on how many of those changed their view against the IPCC since the scandals?

    SvaraRadera
  2. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

    SvaraRadera
  3. Sven, so if you ask nuclear physicists whether protons exist or not, they are not reliable because they are 'DEPENDENT' on the existence of protons?

    The questions are really well formulated, unlike the ones Phil Jones got, and if you do not think there is any AGW you have a real possibility of expressing that in the answers. However, almost nobody did that.

    SvaraRadera
  4. Sven: "As always who you ask and what you ask affect the result enormously."
    Yes, it does. For instance, it matters whether you ask people that actually know what they are talking about.

    SvaraRadera
  5. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

    SvaraRadera
  6. Sven:

    The Denial hype is dependent on
    Koch and Exxon money - to an important extent....

    ThC

    SvaraRadera
  7. Sven: Since you yourself acknowledge the existence of climate change, your accusation of bias doesn't fly.

    SvaraRadera
  8. ausairman,
    Sorry no specific info on that. You can read all the questions and answers here

    SvaraRadera
  9. Sven,
    We have a moderation policy which involves rejecting comments comparing AGW proponents to the Spanish Inquisition.

    SvaraRadera
  10. Sven, I just began reading James Hansen's new book "Storms of my Grandchildren". It is quite interesting to read about how in the 1980s, Hansen lost funding because of an article he published which was seen as "alarmist".

    SvaraRadera
  11. Simon, on the other hand Henrik Svensmark, together with Björn Lomborg, got money from the Danish parliament, overruling the decisions by the research council. As I understand it, it was the extreme right-wing party Dansk Folkeparti who initiated this. Svensmark actually writes about this in his book 'The Chilling Stars', which may seem somewhat odd for a person trying to appear as a politically incorrect underdog.

    SvaraRadera
  12. ausairman, the science department at SVT sent us the answers to your questions:

    "Regarding the question about those who have changed their view about IPCC:

    - 3 percent says that they have changed their opinion about their confidence in the main conclusions in the AR4-report. Of those 3 percent all now says they have confidence in AR4.

    - 6 percent says they have changed their opinion about their confidence in IPCC as an organization. Three quarters of those 6 percent now says they have confidence in IPCC as an organization, and one quarter now answers "don't know".

    - None of the 3 percent who now says that they do not have confidence in IPCC as an organization have changed their mind since the autumn.

    SVT, science department "

    We have checked that this comes from the correct source.

    SvaraRadera
  13. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

    SvaraRadera
  14. Sven
    "But to be so haughty to believe humans are the cause are just plain pretentious."

    To just believe it is human caused, without observations and data to back it up, would be a bit pretentious, i agree.


    my best
    /Cecilia

    SvaraRadera
  15. You all pretend like you have no idea what Sven is talking about.
    Allow me to try rephrasing his comments:

    Of all the people today working in climatology - how many percent of those would still be employed in this area if the "threat of AGW" wasn't on the political agenda?
    Please try to understand what I'm asking and reply honestly to it.

    SvaraRadera
  16. Patrik,
    How many scientists do you think would be happy to spend their careers working on a fake problem, producing fake papers, instead of doing real science? How may scientists are stupid enough to get into science because they want to get rich on grant money? And if it all was a fake, how many scientists would have resisted the temptation to gain eternal fame by publishing papers revealing the truth about the climate?

    And how lacking of any real arguments, not to mention common decency, does one have to be to argue like you and Sven do, without even producing a shred of evidence?

    SvaraRadera
  17. Patrik...försöker du säga att svenska vetenskapsmän och -kvinnor
    konspirerar och vränger fakta bara för få behålla jobbet? Tänke du dig vi andra försiktigt borde börja fundera i de banorna...?

    ThC

    SvaraRadera
  18. Lars K>> Too much to ask for to receive an answer to my question?
    I haven't said a word about cheating, false science etc. Those are all your words.

    ThC>> Förstår inte riktigt vad du menar..?

    SvaraRadera
  19. I don't understand this "I want to get rich so I'll do climate science!" argument. If I would want to get rich, I wouldn't do science at all. And if I would want to get rich doing climate science I would join the other side. The denialists have the really significant funds.

    SvaraRadera
  20. I, at least, haven't spoken about anyone getting rich on climate research.

    My question is quite simple and honest, but I can rephrase it somewhat:
    How many would be employed in the field of climatology if AGW wasn't an issue - compared to now?

    I certainly have no problem with people getting paid well for their work. That's really not an issue as I see it.
    I'm pretty sure that there are very few climatologists or scientists in general who doubt that what they're doing is meaningful, but that of course doesn't mean that it IS meaningful. That's two entirely different things...

    SvaraRadera
  21. Patrik, I suppose many of them would still work in climate research, some in other lines of research, some doing teaching instead, or other jobs.

    Now Patrik, can you please explain to us how this is relevant without accusing climate scientists of dishostety?

    SvaraRadera
  22. Lars Karlsson>> I sure can...
    I don't see any contradiction between being honest in what one does and the possibility that one does is... Well... Not the most useful work in the world.

    I can think of a *lot* of lines of work (and fields of science) where this could be said.

    But that is a philosophical question which is very hard to answer; who's work is most important: A nurses' or a factory workers'? I have no idea, but the world will probably not end even if we had a lot fewer of them both.
    Note: I am *not* saying that we don't need nurses or factory workers, I'm just trying to illustrate the hopeles task of judging if a line of work is more useful/important than another.

    However; You probably agree with the logic in the reasoning that if there is no AGW, we probably won't need quite as many climatologists as we have now - right?

    And here comes the point:

    There is (of course) a built-in resistance within a line of occupation when it comes to admitting that a large part of ones work maybe isn't very important.
    And I think that goes for all occupations; nurses, factory workers, climatologists...
    This should be taken into account when evaluating a survey like the one you write about here.

    SvaraRadera
  23. Patrik,
    There are obviously quite a lot of areas of science that are not really determining-the-future-of-mankind kind of useful, but the scientists in those areas go on doing their research anyhow, because they find it interesting - they simply want to understand how things work, and make new discoveries. I don't see why climate scientists would be very different in their needs. So I think your entire argument is nonsense.

    Here is another explanation: those climate scientists interviewed are well-informed and intelligent people who probably forget more climate science in single day than you learn in a month. But people like you and Sven here cannot accept that such well-informed and intelligent people should hold a view opposite to yours, so you try to find reasons to belittle or malign them.

    SvaraRadera
  24. Lars>> That most climatologists honestly find their work interresting, stimulating and exiting I do not doubt one bit.
    I am not questioning the sincereness of the climatologists work here, it's you who keep bringing that up.
    I am questioning the value of this survey, considering what I wrote earlier.

    SvaraRadera
  25. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

    SvaraRadera
  26. Patrik,
    You still haven't expained how what you wrote is relevant.

    Sven,
    That was just for the sake of balance.

    SvaraRadera
  27. Gott folk, är det verkligen nödvändigt att föra denna diskussion på stapplande engelska?

    Att SVT:s undersökning kan vara av intresse i det internationella nyhetsflödet, och att det därför är en viss finess med att bloggposten författades på engelska, har jag inget att invända emot. Men den efterföljande diskussionen? Jag har mycket svårt att tro att den skulle vara det minsta intressant för våra engelskspråkiga läsare. Den som är så engagerad i klimatvetenskapliga spörsmål att hon/han surfar in på en blogg i den avlägsna avkroken Sverige har naturligtvis redan sett den tankegång Sven och Patrik torgför, och förstått felet med den. Lars har redan klargjort det hela så väl att jag egentligen inte behöver säga så mycket mer, men låt mig ändå tillägga en sak.

    Sven-Patriks osubstantierade och illa maskerade budskap om den korrumperade vetenskapen är inte falsifierbart. Vilka vetenskapliga resultat vi än pekar på, ovasett om det handlar om enskilda studier eller om det vetenskapliga konsensusläget, så kan Sven-Patrik svara med ryggmärgen: Det där har väl forskarna - medvetet eller omedvetet - hittat på för att dra uppmärksamhet och pengar till sin verksamhet. Notera också att den Sven-Patrikska tolkningsramen går lika bra att tillämpa på alla områden och inte bara på klimatvetenskapen. Så fort ett intressant vetenskapligt resultat presenteras så kan det avfärdas med att forskarna bara försöker göra sig märkvärdiga och inte behöver tas på allvar. Och då kan man undra vad det i så fall skulle vara för vits med vetenskap överhuvudtaget.

    SvaraRadera
  28. Olle H wrote: "Gott folk, är det verkligen nödvändigt att föra denna diskussion på stapplande engelska?"

    My English is not stapling!

    SvaraRadera
  29. As for using English :)
    This consensus have an importance not only for the Swedish 'voters'. I would say that it's an comfort for all that want to believe that people actually can learn from science, and research.

    And when it comes to Sven and Patrick I can only say that as long as you think with your wallet you will have to deny it. And you're right, it will cost money, for how long? Don't know, twenty years? Ten? more? But we will get a 'cleaner' world from it, hopefully so. I do not like the 'centralized ideas' of nuclear energy though, as that only will leave us with a new problem to take care of.

    You just need to put it against if this consensus have a true ground. If it has, and we don't care to do what we can? Well, your wallet will become increasingly thin that way too. And the measures we at last will have to try, to come to terms with Global Warming, will then become draconian.

    It's a small world, growing smaller by the minute. And, its our only one.

    Regards
    Yoron.

    SvaraRadera
  30. Kim Bergström25 april 2010 12:56

    Yoron,

    Spot on.

    SvaraRadera
  31. Kim Bergström25 april 2010 15:36

    Another point in this debate is that if AGW is as real as it seems it's not more climatologists we need, but more action. As in money spent on action. Last I recall this is exactly what these scientists are clamoring for. They are NOT saying "spend more money on climate research", they are saying "do something ferchristssakes!!!".

    It is POLITICIANS that want to spend more money on more research, because they can't face up to the challenge of actually doing something. Funding more science on an already settled issue is just their way of avoiding hard decisions. And it is also due to the power of anti-AGW lobbyists. Don't blame the scientists for that.

    SvaraRadera

Tips: Använd gärna signatur när du kommenterar. Det underlättar samtalet