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.
This is an old article that has already been thoroughly debunked. The survey is from Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists in Alberta (APEGA). Directly employed by the oil and gas industry, and a lot of which are not even climate scientist (or scientist at all-- engineers for the petroleum industry).
One of the comments sums up this whole article and survey best:
Quote:
“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.”
Mr. Taylor,
As in previous weeks, your editorial rests on misrepresentation of the facts. As billb notes, the survey was conducted by APEGA, a professional organization of engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta. According to the study you cite:
“[T]he petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta.”
Failing to mention this fact is a clear case of misrepresentation. Why are you so eager to mislead Forbes readers? Obviously these survey results cannot honestly be extrapolated to engineers and geoscientists in general as you are trying to do.
“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.”
This assertion is directly contradicted by the APEGA report itself which summarizes the results as follows:
27.4% believe it is caused by primarily natural factors (natural variation, volcanoes, sunspots, lithosphere motions, etc.), 25.7% believe it is caused by primarily human factors (burning fossil fuels, changing land use, enhanced water
evaporation due to irrigation), and 45.2% believe that climate change is caused by both human and natural factors.
Mr. Taylor, in case you are unaware, a “majority” constitutes 50% or more of a sample. In this instance, there is no majority opinion regarding the primary cause of climate change among the APEGA members who responded to the survey. Once again you are misinforming Forbes readers in order to prop up the Heartland Institute’s favored policy of free market environmentalism.
Mr. Taylor, if you have a good argument in favor of free market environmentalism, you should make it. However, your weekly attempts to mislead the public about climate science strongly suggest you don’t have a good argument.
This is an old article that has already been thoroughly debunked. The survey is
from Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists in Alberta (APEGA).
Directly employed by the oil and gas industry, and a lot of which are not even
climate scientist (or scientist at all-- engineers for the petroleum industry).
Harper only allows scientists employed by the oil and gas industry to have a voice. The rest are gagged, fired and not allowed to have access to their own research.
See the Fifth Estate documentary called The Silence of the Labs.
Scientists across the country are expressing growing alarm that federal cutbacks to research programs monitoring areas that range from climate change and ocean habitats to public health will deprive Canadians of crucial information.
In the past five years the federal government has dismissed more than 2,000 scientists, and hundreds of programs and world-renowned research facilities have lost their funding. Programs that monitored things such as smoke stack emissions, food inspections, oil spills, water quality and climate change have been drastically cut or shut down.
Dr. Peter Ross, Canada’s only marine mammal toxicologist, spent 15 years studying the increasing levels of toxins in oceans and in animals like the killer whale. But in the spring of 2012, the federal government closed the Department of Fisheries contaminants program, dismissing Ross and 55 of his colleagues across the country. Silence of the Labs - the fifth estate - CBC News
And any other conservative pundits and politicians?
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not scientist. They don't even have college degrees. Yet when Rush Limbaugh yells on the radio that global warming is a lie, conservatives believe it. But why? Rush has zero qualifications on the issue.
But when 99.9% of climate scientist say that humans significantly contribute to increasing global temperature, conservatives deny it.
I just don't understand what the logical rationale for this is?
Let's put it this way. the Ancient Greeks thought storms fell under the purview of Zeus who was angrily throwing thunder and lightening bolts around. As civilization steadily advanced for hundreds of centuries, the world became more enlightened and educated and as science evolved, many many aspects of nature have been explained by such science. One can only surmise that Palin, Bachman, et. al. may actually be time travelers from some ancient time and place, and hope the mother ship will be calling them home soon.
You guys are great at cut and pasting charts, but never look into any methods to determine how the data was obtained.
Now in the "ocean temp data", the devil is in the details. If you had read the data, you would have found that "shallow measurements were made 1.8 million times, but "deep" (1,000 m) were made only 300,000 times. Thus the data is scewed toward surface measurements. Given that the vast majority of the volume of the ocean is at greater than 1,000 m, the data collected essentially only constitutes near surface data.
"Using this definition, WOD09 contains approximately 1.8 million shallow casts so that the cost of the ship time to perform these measurements is approximately $3.7 billion. In addition, WOD09 contains 0.3 million profiles deeper than 1000 m depth, so the cost in ship time to make these "deep" measurements is approximately $3.1 billion"
In short, they did not obtain accurate data due to cost, yet want us to believe thier "conslusions"!
BS data in- BS conclusions out
So where is that paper you had published? Don't be shy, share it. By the way, I sure hope your spelling is better in your paper than it is here on the forum.
Is this really all you can do. Cite your alleged credentials and call evidence BS.
Right!
Here is the idiocy of your argument. You say that 1.7 X 10 23 J of energy is "trapped in the ocean". Just trapped- trapped like a rat with no second law of thermodynamics to save it.
Now the "data' that you site notes that it made 1.8 million measurements above 1000m and 300,000 below 1,000 m. Thus, the "data" is already scewed to surface temps (gee............... warmer water will be closer to the surface). They did this due to cost and state so in thier methods.
Now if we take your bogus number and the volume of the ocean in liters and convert that to grams of water, we have the following equation:
1.7 X 10 23J = (1.36 X 10 24 gm)( 4.8 J/gm X degree C) (temp change in degrees C)
That means that OVER 30 YEARS, we have had a net change of .026 degrees C in the ocean temps due to "global warming"!
Here is the idiocy of your argument. You say that 1.7 X 10 23 J of energy is "trapped in the ocean". Just trapped- trapped like a rat with no second law of thermodynamics to save it.
Now the "data' that you site notes that it made 1.8 million measurements above 1000m and 300,000 below 1,000 m. Thus, the "data" is already scewed to surface temps (gee............... warmer water will be closer to the surface). They did this due to cost and state so in thier methods.
Now if we take your bogus number and the volume of the ocean in liters and convert that to grams of water, we have the following equation:
1.7 X 10 23J = (1.36 X 10 24 gm)( 4.8 J/gm X degree C) (temp change in degrees C)
That means that OVER 30 YEARS, we have had a net change of .026 degrees C in the ocean temps due to "global warming"!
So much for your bullcrap argument.
Again I think you are inserting your own straw man here. I also think you are making progress in your thinking which I applaud.
Basically heat does dissipate from oceans as I said it just does so at a slower rate then heat on land or in the atmosphere. Secondly oceans are rather large. Because of this it takes a whole lot of energy to heat the ocean even a fraction of a degree as you note. With that said the ocean is being warmed and thus contains more heat energy then it did in the past and there are a whole lot of measurements showing this. This heating of the ocean suggests that the earth is warming. It is as simple as that. The net heat lost is less then the net heat gained.
Why is this? Because certain gases and dust act as insulation trapping heat and those gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activity.
This is an old article that has already been thoroughly debunked. The survey is from Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists in Alberta (APEGA). Directly employed by the oil and gas industry, and a lot of which are not even climate scientist (or scientist at all-- engineers for the petroleum industry).
One of the comments sums up this whole article and survey best:
The key point here is do they believe that "humans are creating a global warming crisis,"which is miles different then is CO2 a greenhouse gas, and do humans produce CO2. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere and it causing a global warming crisis, are two different things.
I, and many other people, do not believe their is a "global warming crisis" being caused by humans.
Again I think you are inserting your own straw man here. I also think you are making progress in your thinking which I applaud.
Basically heat does dissipate from oceans as I said it just does so at a slower rate then heat on land or in the atmosphere. Secondly oceans are rather large. Because of this it takes a whole lot of energy to heat the ocean even a fraction of a degree as you note. With that said the ocean is being warmed and thus contains more heat energy then it did in the past and there are a whole lot of measurements showing this. This heating of the ocean suggests that the earth is warming. It is as simple as that. The net heat lost is less then the net heat gained.
Why is this? Because certain gases and dust act as insulation trapping heat and those gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activity.
It a cycle that takes thousands of years. We were in a little ice-age 100 years ago, the oceans started warming well before the end of the LIA. The warming going on in the oceans started centuries before, and we humans did not cause it.
Every week there seems to be another "AGW is a hoax" thread. I swear, has any scientific theory ever been bashed and had scientists threatened since the inquisition time period?
Someone's dollars were well spent is all I will say.
Again I think you are inserting your own straw man here. I also think you are making progress in your thinking which I applaud.
Basically heat does dissipate from oceans as I said it just does so at a slower rate then heat on land or in the atmosphere. Secondly oceans are rather large. Because of this it takes a whole lot of energy to heat the ocean even a fraction of a degree as you note. With that said the ocean is being warmed and thus contains more heat energy then it did in the past and there are a whole lot of measurements showing this. This heating of the ocean suggests that the earth is warming. It is as simple as that. The net heat lost is less then the net heat gained.
Why is this? Because certain gases and dust act as insulation trapping heat and those gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activity.
I just refuted your "whole lot of" arguments by -
1. showing that the assumption of your 1.7 X 10 23 Joules of "stored heat" is bogus, as the vast majority of measurements were made by surface temps and those above 1000m depth. Obviously, the surface and near surface temps are going to be higher, which makes the whole assumption bogus.
READ THE METHODS
2. Let's say that your 1.7 X 10 23 J measurement is accurate (which it is not). If we assume that and understand that there are 1.36 X 10 21 liters of water in the ocean, then this "massive amount of heat" would warm the water only .026 degrees Centigrade! And THAT is over 30 YEARS!!!
The probability of such a small change occurring simply due to chance (or measurement error- which they actually say in the study) is quite high.
Garbage in = Garbage out
This is the problem with you libs, who have no background in science, trying to "explain", understand, or rationalize such bogus information. You don't have the tools or ability to understand what constitutes good vs crap science.
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.
