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.
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.”
Which is correct, both appear as credible? I wish there was an undeniable consensus among credible sources (discounting the many unqualified crackpots).
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
I don't think anyone knows how much of the climate that is changing is related to human activities. It is prudent to try to minimize the factors which may impact the climate, just in case we might be having an effect on the climate beyond natural causes.
I don't think anyone knows how much of the climate that is changing is related to human activities. It is prudent to try to minimize the factors which may impact the climate, just in case we might be having an effect on the climate beyond natural causes.
You are essentially agreeing we know nothing, we have no clue, but then saying we should act on knowing nothing anyway. That is foolish.
If were to apply such logical reasoning uniformly, we could justify anything. This is why such rationalization is used by those who seek power and control. You don't need evidence, you just need a scary story and then a call to avoid the prediction. Thing is, this isn't new... people have used many religions to achieve such in the past. It is why we refer to those activists on this issue as religious fanatics and it is why they are so laughable when they go on about "science".
That study is not "newly published". It was published in 2012. Furthermore, the geoscientists and engineers that were polled were not some random sample. They were employed in the petroleum industry in Alberta. That they take a dim view of man-made climate change is not a big shocker.
That study is not "newly published". It was published in 2012. Furthermore, the geoscientists and engineers that were polled were not some random sample. They were employed in the petroleum industry in Alberta. That they take a dim view of man-made climate change is not a big shocker.
Just as it isn't a shocker that government scientists, agencies, public funded institutions and universities also take the position they do. Certainly not a surprise, after all... the Climategate emails showed us exactly why. /hmmm
Just as it isn't a shocker that government scientists, agencies, public funded institutions and universities also take the position they do. Certainly not a surprise, after all... the Climategate emails showed us exactly why. /hmmm
Yes, but that isn't the topic of this thread. Next time someone starts a thread about a survey of EPA workers be sure to bring it up. The point is that is the OP is trying to show some trend of scientists away from man-made climate change, it fails because the survey is old and it wasn't a representative sample.
This was a survey of experts who work in the oil and gas industry. It is not surprising that they would be more skeptical of climate change warnings than the scientific community as a whole.
From the published study:
"To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others.
Yes, but that isn't the topic of this thread. Next time someone starts a thread about a survey of EPA workers be sure to bring it up. The point is that is the OP is trying to show some trend of scientists away from man-made climate change, it fails because the survey is old and it wasn't a representative sample.
It is relevant to the dismissal you used.
That is, you dismissed these scientists simply because of their vocation. What makes them less expert in the sciences than a climate scientist? McIntyre, who along with McKitrick showed much Hansen and Mann's work to be invalid (specifically Mann's hockey stick) was a retired mineral exploration profession, who had an eduction in mathematics and yet he showed the climate scientists like Mann to be wrong on the math he used constantly.
So, all you did was step in and dismiss out of hand with the very old and tired activist talking point "they work for the oil industry!!!" which is nothing more than a fallacy.
My commenting that you rely on a bunch of hacks using the same reasoning process you did is quite valid to this discussion as it puts your comment clearly into perspective and motive.
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.
