[Stoves] Jamaican cooking (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)

Xavier Brandao xvr.brandao at gmail.com
Fri Apr 8 15:25:54 CDT 2011


Dear Crispin,

Actually the two studies I've sent the link to are different from the one
you mentioned. They are done by different organisations, on different
samples. Funny enough they all found 97%.

- The first study I mentioned was made by people from the Stansford
university, where "we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers"

- "The 2007 study was conducted by mail within the United States by Harris
Interactive on behalf of Statistical Assessment Service between March 19 and
May 28, 2007 among 489 professional scientists who were either a member of
the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the American Geophysical Union
(AGU)."

But yes, numbers can say what you want them to say. I do believe they draw a
correct picture anyways and that a vast majority of the scientific community
working closely or not on climate agree on AGW. It doesn't mean they are
right, but that is not the question here.

Cheers,

Xavier


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:23:37 -0400
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jamaican cooking (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
	(Richard	Stanley)
Message-ID: <05ec01cbf559$4c263d20$e472b760$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Xavier

 

I will be brief, but something must be said because it affects project
funding. You make some good points. One worth following up is this :

 

++++++

>That is his opinion and he has very little to support it, though lots of

> supporters, in my view. There are many others around with different
opinions 

 

On the contrary, he has hundreds (thousands?) of studies at his disposal.
The vast majority of the scientific community agreed on climate change
caused by anthropic actions. And in different disciplines.

Two different studies found out 97% of the scientists interviewed agreed on
climate change caused by anthropic action:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-
overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html 

 

+++++++

 

This (internet) survey is typical of the current state of affairs. The '97%'
turns out to be 75 out of 77 people who responded favourably to a study that
initially included many thousands of people (10,257 to be exact). When the
result from over 3000 of them was very different from what was expected
(i.e. the number who supported the postulate was quite low)  the surveyors
repeatedly reduced the number of respondents using different criteria until
there were only 77 left. Of these, 75 responded in the affirmative. So, yes,
they surveyed thousands of scientists, but only 77 were included in the
final number. This is often referred to as 'post-normal science'. In fact
the question they were asked was not the one you have above.

 

You can read about it at : 

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/97-of-climate-scientists-agree
-that-the-urban-heat-island-effect-impacts-gisstemp/

 

and

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/04/weather-channel-and-weather-com-the-su
rvey-says%E2%80%A6/

 

Now imagine that your stove programme funding requires this level of deceit
to get funded. And the deceit is uncovered ? Then what ? We used to have to
show actual commercial viability to get funding for a proposed stove
project. 

 

Regards

Crispin






More information about the Stoves mailing list