Noted Climate Change Skeptic Reverses Stance.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Avoiding, as usual. All of your post might be true, but you didn’t answr the premise.
Was it 3000?
Was it 75?

Let me sum up the discussion real quick.

Aji: You were wrong about this poll, the sample size is too small.
GIGO: <reason why sample size is irrelevant>
Aji: But the sample size!
GIGO: <further explanation why the sample size is irrelevant>
Aji: BUT THE SAMPLE SIZE

Dude, drop it, because it doesn’t matter. Even if you’re right on this point, congrats, it doesn’t help you any.

[MrDibble]

So I’m guessing that my question in the OP is answered as “only for some. Others will go down fighting.”

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@GIGObuster

As you have more experience on papers and journals, I’m curious to know if what the Berkeley BEST team is reporting on their site is correct, They already got the latest paper to be peer reviewed? Since June?

http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/

If quoting their FAQ makes me more experienced, the bar is low.
I’m glad they’re peer-reviewing.
Still no answer, though.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Let me sum up the discussion real quick.

Aji: You were wrong about this poll, the sample size is too small.
GIGO: <reason why sample size is irrelevant>
Aji: But the sample size!
GIGO: <further explanation why the sample size is irrelevant>
Aji: BUT THE SAMPLE SIZE

Dude, drop it, because it doesn’t matter. Even if you’re right on this point, congrats, it doesn’t help you any.

There is no explanation why the size is irrelevant, only that he doesn’t think it is important. A phrase like “97% of climate scientists agree with AGW” has a different ring if you say “97% (75 of77) of (specialised) climate sicentists (out of a sample of 3000) agree with AGW (statements that even most sceptics agree with)”.
And yes it help, because real science gets substituted for a soundbite.