Is This a Verifiable Claim?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Here is an excerpt from the study you posted:

"There was some overlap between these sources, with the unique total number of names amounting to ∼8000. Based on email address availability, 7555 of them were contacted. Of these emails, ∼1000 were returned undelivered or unread, leaving a total of 6550 people that were successfully approached. 1868 ques ...[text shortened]... minority that jumped at the chance to vilify Duchess be a fair representation of the consensus?

What percentage of emails do you respond to?

"65% chose a likelihood at least as high as that in AR5 for net anthropogenic activities". THat's exactly the same number as the previous two studies we've already looked at. What's the chance all three studies have the same huge error rate you're suggesting in the same direction? It seems like a prime example of a biased point of view: If it doesn't fit with what I know, then it must be wrong.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It's because they are superior in their own minds, since they have TWO.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The ball has a voice

and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks...

Originally posted by @deepthought
Surveys are always of a subset of a group. They extrapolate to the entire population and give error estimates based on group size. Frankly though a survey which includes over 1% of a population, never mind 29%, is going to be pretty accurate. What is more the dissenting scientists are, in my estimation, liable to be more likely to respond to the surv ...[text shortened]... or is likely to be in the opposite direction to the one you need it to be to support your point.

What is your source of information?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"Many hateful trolls love to vilify me at every opportunity. They don't need any pretext to vent their obsessive hatred--insults, lies, and other nonsense. They behave as I expect them."

So you admit the consensus would be inaccurate?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
What percentage of emails do you respond to?

"65% chose a likelihood at least as high as that in AR5 for net anthropogenic activities". THat's exactly the same number as the previous two studies we've already looked at. What's the chance all three studies have the same huge error rate you're suggesting in the same direction? It seems like a prime example of a biased point of view: [b] If it doesn't fit with what I know, then it must be wrong.[/b]

We have been through this before. Less than one third of respondents is deeply flawed. Look up the definition of the word "indifferent". Omitting the indifferent is blatant fraud and deception and has nothing to do with the scientific process.
You are promoting nothing short of scientific fraud and contempt for democracy. By your logic we should not let everyone vote and we should just let a low percentage of the population determine what the population as a whole wants. Are you for letting Iowa alone determining who becomes president of the USA? Why let Michigan vote? Your logic is deeply flawed because you are influenced by partisan division.
What about what they don't say? How do we know the people that did this study did not pull a Samuel George Morton? Maybe the people sending emails were intentionally sloppy and got the email addresses wrong so they would not be sent to the 5% of skeptics that they claim they sent them to. Did they say what percentage of those 5% responded to the emails? Not that I saw.
This is an issue that could mean a crap load of taxes being imposed on people to fight mostly natural global warming. I think phone calls to the climate scientists that did not respond the first time is reasonable. Is the Census Bureau an impossible task? Climate scientists are a much smaller population than the whole population of the USA.

The assertion that 29% is good enough is ridiculous. We are not talking about the same high expense of the Census Bureau, just the same damn standard!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The ball has spoken.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Less than one third of respondents is deeply flawed.

How did election polls get so close to predicting the result of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections while polling far fewer than 29% of the electorate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
How did election polls get so close to predicting the result of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections while polling far fewer than 29% of the electorate?

Yes indeed.
In fact, providing measures are taken to insure the sample is sufficiently random and without selection bias or at least with adequate analysis mathematically adjusted for known selection bias, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias ) its degree of reliability would be determined almost solely by the absolute number of individuals sampled from the whole population, NOT by the proportion of the whole population that was sampled, which wouldn't have significant effect on its reliability unless it was arbitrarily 'high' proportion which would often make it impractical.
In fact, providing it is done right, a sampling of, say, a mere 0.01% of a very large population can still give a very reliable representation of the whole population; it would in that case just depend on the absolute number sampled.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
How did election polls get so close to predicting the result of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections while polling far fewer than 29% of the electorate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

Better question: how did they get it so wrong for so long that all of the reports had Hillary winning by a landslide?

Don't feign a short memory.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Better question: how did they get it so wrong for so long that all of the reports had Hillary winning by a landslide?

Don't feign a short memory.

It just shows some people poll one thing but do another. No surprise there. Pollsters were surprised however. You poll 'I am democrat' but vote republican, polls beforehand can't possibly take that kind of thing into account so they just report what the data says.

There was the case of 'Dewey Wins!" printed in newspapers before the election was finished, egg on face time at the Chicago daily Tribune in 1948.

Big surprise. Polls can be wrong.