>>12970468>So climate scientists are not alarmist now? Which is it?essentially, the actual scientists are less alarmist, "science communicators" and other figures trumped up in politics and the media are more alarmist. It's political
>If you actually read the study, only 41% of the scientists surveyed were climate scientistslol the study was specifically done to address issues with the quality of the subjects in previous studies on this topic
"our survey procedures allowed us to address some limitations of previously reported surveys. The two large-scale surveys suffered from the low response
rates ... In addition, the Doran–Zimmerman
survey sampled from listings of the American Geological Institute, a federation of
geoscience societies whose member organizations do not include meteorological associations. For example, only 36 of the 3,146 respondents were meteorologists. This is
certainly a defensible sample, but it does leave open to question the views of a
substantial segment of the climatological community.
For this study, Harris Interactive, an international survey research firm, administered a mail survey among prominent scientists in the United States who were members of the AGU, the professional association of earth and space scientists, or the
AMS, the professional association of atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic
sciences. The sample was drawn equally from members of the AMS and the AGU
who were listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science (AMWS)"
https://people.uwec.edu/jamelsem/papers/CC_Literature_Web_Share/Science/CC_Science_Opinion_Farnsworth_2012.pdf100% of the subjects were prominent scientists with membership in earth science processional associations
