Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They asked "geoscientists and engineers" from the oil and gas industry in Alberta Canada.
From a group that belongs to no legitimate organization or group concerning climate sceince, at all.
Is this a ****ing joke?
What matters is that people disprove the facts, not disagree in opinion. There are no facts in this peice, just paragraphs of crap about them disagreeing and feeling butthurt because people don't take them seriously. If this is the best climate denial has to offer then they have already lost.
"Studies" like this are just masterbation for climate deniers, and don't change actual facts at all.
This topic was covered in another thread when the Forbes article was first released in February. It's been thoroughly dis-proven since then. The author, James Taylor, is a known shill for the petroleum industry and works for the Heartland Institute, an astroturf organization largely funded by Koch industries.
They asked "geoscientists and engineers" from the oil and gas industry in Alberta Canada.
From a group that belongs to no legitimate organization or group concerning climate sceince, at all.
Is this a ****ing joke?
What matters is that people disprove the facts, not disagree in opinion. There are no facts in this peice, just paragraphs of crap about them disagreeing and feeling butthurt because people don't take them seriously. If this is the best climate denial has to offer then they have already lost.
"Studies" like this are just masterbation for climate deniers, and don't change actual facts at all.
Climate deniers?
Are there people who deny something we call the climate, really exists?
Or is that the latest new phrase in the playbook of those who want everyone to believe "climate change" is man-made?
I remember reading a posted article from Time magazine from the 70's saying we were headed for another ice age. It was implied that man may be responsible just as it is proffered as fact today that man is responsible for "global warming",,,,,eeer excuse me "climate change".
The funny thing is that global warming may very well be occurring just as it has well before the human industrial revolution.
But the reactionary playbook now uses semantics to say "you cannot deny there is climate change", of which I fully agree. The overall climate changes on a regular basis assuming you go beyond the brief time span of the current "climate doomsayers".
The earth will undoubtedly also go through another ice age, and assuming humans are still on the planet, someone will say it is humans fault they will freeze to death. Maybe they can go back and look up this centuries Time magazines to get some ideas how to warm things up.
Are there people who deny something we call the climate, really exists?
Or is that the latest new phrase in the playbook of those who want everyone to believe "climate change" is man-made?
I remember reading a posted article from Time magazine from the 70's saying we were headed for another ice age. It was implied that man may be responsible just as it is proffered as fact today that man is responsible for "global warming",,,,,eeer excuse me "climate change".
The funny thing is that global warming may very well be occurring just as it has well before the human industrial revolution.
But the reactionary playbook now uses semantics to say "you cannot deny there is climate change", of which I fully agree. The overall climate changes on a regular basis assuming you go beyond the brief time span of the current "climate doomsayers".
The earth will undoubtedly also go through another ice age, and assuming humans are still on the planet, someone will say it is humans fault they will freeze to death. Maybe they can go back and look up this centuries Time magazines to get some ideas how to warm things up.
`
I recall when that Time magazine came out (1972 or 1973 or so). The article was quickly debunked by all, and that theory quickly died.
As for the subject at hand: I admit, I have never heard of a 'peer reviewed' survey. Does this mean that other statisticians reviewed the survey method?
I wonder how the Gorebots are going to spin this one?
No need to spin it.
The linked article stated that "The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
Most of the other frames and models in the survey indicated the Humans were a significant factor in climate change.
False dichotomy. It's not accept it unquestioningly, as you stated I had in the first post, or reject it.
I request that you provide evidence of this again. You made the accusation, prove it.
no.
either you accept MM or you dont. if you dont then we dont have an issue.
i suspect your view is you do not "unquestioningly" accept his work, but you do still accept it because it agrees with the "consinsus view"
LOL.
im having fun here and playing around. but there is a serious reality. those of you who argue for this "consinsus" dont really care about the validity of the science.
"It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists.
so would point out a couple things, in the nature of science
1) this study was asking the opinion of a specific group (geoscientists and eingneers) on their beliefs on global warming. Though i'm not sure if "peer reviewed" means much on its own. Who was the peer? how was it done?
2) this is a pretty different outcome than the Skeptical Science team (in 2011) and Naomi Orseskes did in 2003. Those studies focused on papers regarding climate science, by climatologist. A different group of people than Geo-scientists and Engineers. Their studies of the papers (not individual opinion) showed 97% agreement on the basic principals of climate change and human impact. . .
3) Looking at the paper, it seems pretty biased. For instance, if a scientist in this paper survey came up as a "skeptic" i.e. unproven. . they labeled in a bucket of "climate change denier". Looking deeper this survey doesn't show us the same as the science group. . .partly because if the scientist had any doubts, they were thrown into a denier pile
4) Those in this study seem to have a vested interested based on their jobs. If you work for a tobacco company, you don't want to say tobacco kills do you?
So OP, why should we believe geo-scientists and engineers (people who make a living out of getting oil, gas, etc, from the ground) over climate scientists? just curious.
either you accept MM or you dont. if you dont then we dont have an issue.
i suspect your view is you do not "unquestioningly" accept his work, but you do still accept it because it agrees with the "consinsus view"
LOL.
im having fun here and playing around. but there is a serious reality. those of you who argue for this "consinsus" dont really care about the validity of the science.
even if I cant spell consensus.
Michael Mann has been proven to be correct by a number of independant climate models and he has been investigated and exhonerated of claims by Wegman/McIntyre/McKitrick (who were later found to be guilty of what they accused him of). It doesn't matter what everyone thinks, or what you and I think, what matters is the facts have been proven.
It doesn't matter everyone used to think disease was caused by the devil. The reality that microorganisms cause illness didn't change based on what "everyone" thought to be true. It's not like it was the devil, but when people started thinking it was disease the cause suddenly changed. What happened is that some one proved germ theory to be true, just like the theory of global warming.
I also do accept the consensous of people who are educated and experianced in the field of study, with the data to back up their claims. Just like I accept the consensous of doctors that waving a pen over a broken leg doesn't fix it, or that the consenous of nuclear physicists that gamma radiation is bad for you. I also read up on it because I am interested, but they have the knowledge and experiance I do not on this subject.
The difference between facts and opinion is that facts don't change when your opinion does. That is the serious reality.
Last edited by EmeraldCityWanderer; 08-13-2013 at 02:30 PM..
"It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
Interesting study, too bad you didn't read it and instead opted to swallow the Taylor interpretation of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
