Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis (suspect, Obama)

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

You misrepresented my post - which had nothing to do with the posts about Mann and was directed only at your rant below:

Actually, I did not. You see... when you enter into a discussion between others, you are constrained by the context of their discussion when making your point about their discussion.

My response that you quoted was specifically dealing with that quote line I provided you:

1. Poster claimed Geologists don't study climate.
2. I provided a link to a geologist/geophysicist, the creator of the Hockey stick, "expert" in the field of Dendrochronology, and whose work is a large portion of the CAGW position.
3. Ferd commented with "oops", noting the ridiculous error that poster made.
4. I responded to him commenting about the state of a person who makes such an error (ignorant, devious).
5. You responded to me, with a vague claim of irony, which... if not directed at context of the discussion, has no meaning, unless... you are personally attacking?

You can claim you made a comment without knowing the context and therefore, back away, but if you pursue this past that, you are going to make yourself look silly, and may even just prove the point I made to Ferd.

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Now how about you get back on topic. Explain how the OP, WUWT and the Forbes article completely misrepresented the original source survey and article in a business magazine?

Or are you guys "clueless and so ignorant, so lazy, that you can't even bother to look into the issues you carry a flag for"?

Lets... shall we?

First, I never agreed or even directly commented on the Forbes story as I have not read the paper to any extent to give an opinion on its methodology.

As for WUWT, here is the link they made concerning it:

New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

Read it. Notice something? Notice how the entire posting just quotes the forbes article, displays the abstract for the paper and links to the paper? I would say they are pretty close to what the paper states. If you read below, th 36% are the "solid" CAGW advocates. That is, only 36% of "geoscientists and engineers" take that hard stance. The rest are a mix of various positions that can't be categorized as a black/white position on the issue.

I think the paper is a good read, and a heck of a lot better than the garbage Cook and Nuccitelli put out as they were actually caught falsely categorizing papers into a black/white position for their political motivations. Funny thing about this study is that from it, it is only claiming the percentage of those they evaluated, while Cooks paper was pushed as "97% of all", which obviously was bogus. I didn't see you commenting in those threads though about that study being garbage?



If you look at the paper, 36% are:

Frame 1: Comply with Kyoto

"...they 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."


Frame 2: Nature is overwhelming, 24% are:

"...they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth."


Frame 3: Economic responsibility, 10%:

"They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable."


Frame 4: Fatalists, 17%:

"... diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling:"



Frame 5: Regulation activists, 5%:

" Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life."


Did you read this paper? I haven't seen any comments in this thread by you concerning it? I will check again and see, but I don't think so.

Would you care to comment on the paper and point out where people are "misleading" specifically?

Ok, I found your comments... you didn't state anything other than claim it was misleading and then linked to the study. Care to actually support that specifically? Maybe actually enter the discussion and comment on the paper?

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Well other than blindly regurgitating everything you've swallowed from WUWT, that's pretty much all your posts amount to. Calling everyone who disagrees with you 'dumb'.

Actually, Mr. Wizard, I have posted on this forum concerning this topic for around 6-7 years now. Go ahead, check my posts as you like. You will notice there are numerous posts where I enter the discussion in depth, talk about the science in depth, and question the various positions made by those who proclaim CAGW. I do this in my own words and all during multiple bobbleheads attacking with the usual "denier", "anti-science" tripe. So excuse me if your limited experience in these discussions and your "opinion" are taking with a grain of salt.

The "dumb" comment was specific to a poster who essentially just attacked, dismissed, and insulted. So if you think calling such comments "unintelligent" is unfounded, by all means, please.. argue your case sir, I am sure much popcorn will be digested during your pursuits.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

Every time I see the thread title, I realize how people are misled on a daily basis.

The only true statement that can be made about this study is that a majority of those surveyed are skeptical. That is a very far cry from a majority of scientists.

And, since the sample was limited to a very small sub-set of the scientific population, all that can be said is that their opinions may represent those of the larger population of scientists also working in the two categories sampled.
It says absolutely nothing about any other scientist working in any other field.

The OP's claim is wrong in their implication, I agree. It was only a subset of scientists from other scientific fields, some directly related, others less so.

By making the bold statement, you miss the entire point of the study and display the problem they specifically attend to concerning the issue.

The point of the study was to show that there is not black/white position on the issue and you can not specifically categorize people/research into a direct side of support or not for CAGW.

It is the very thing people have been trying to explain to those like you from day one. There is no "consensus" to any given set position.

The cook paper fiasco should have showed you that when the scientists who work Cook categorized objected to his categorization.

By the way, science itself is skepticism and a scientists primary responsibility is to be skeptical. A scientist that lacks skepticism is not a scientist.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Ferd

...well, I am solidly in the skeptic camp. I read pretty extensively on the subject and have posted in most of the threads on C-D that involve the subject at hand.

My view is pretty much the standard of the posters on C-D who do not buy into the CAGW meme.

so im not really sure what you think we believe.

You cant be solidly in the skeptic camp while also agreeing that global warming exist... or did I just misread your comments earlier ?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You cant be solidly in the skeptic camp while also agreeing that global warming exist... or did I just misread your comments earlier ?

you read me right and yes I can.

your issue is you have believed a bunch of hype about what the skeptic camp is.

you simply do not understand what skeptics believe.

Virtualy all of the scientists that hold a skeptic or luke warm view, believe that the earth has warmed over the last 100+years, that the warming since 1979 has at least some element of CO2 caused warming. That at least some part of the CO2 increase is human caused.

The acutal area of debate centers around what FORCING this CO2 caused additional warming is likely to cause in the future. THIS is the acutal debate that rages among the academics.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Ferd

you read me right and yes I can.

your issue is you have believed a bunch of hype about what the skeptic camp is.

you simply do not understand what skeptics believe.

Virtualy all of the scientists that hold a skeptic or luke warm view, believe that the earth has warmed over the last 100+years, that the warming since 1979 has at least some element of CO2 caused warming. That at least some part of the CO2 increase is human caused.

The acutal area of debate centers around what FORCING this CO2 caused additional warming is likely to cause in the future. THIS is the acutal debate that rages among the academics.

You are dead wrong on the bold part. Im not sure how you can be so mistaken even after you read my comments but i will give it a shot.

You seemed to be defining skeptics as people who disagree on why global warming is happening, I do not. I define it as those who claim it isnt happening at all. The ones who start a thread by saying "We had more snow storms this year than in the last 10 combined" types. I already made that clear, but you continue to try to redefine my comment as if im simply saying skeptics are anyone who doesnt think it is man made.


My idea of skeptics are those who deny global warming entirely, not its cause or where it is going from here.

There also could be a secondary possibility of you simply tossing aside those who dont believe in climate change( as you emphasized "academics"), but my comment isnt talking about academics, it is talking about people at large who deny it, so that still wouldnt make sense.

I think the most likely thing is you just skimmed my comments as assumed i was talking about anyone who denied itwas human made. which still... wouldnt make all that much sense .

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You are dead wrong on the bold part. Im not sure how you can be so mistaken even after you read my comments but i will give it a shot.

You seemed to be defining skeptics as people who disagree on why global warming is happening, I do not. I define it as those who claim it isnt happening at all. The ones who start a thread by saying "We had more snow storms this year than in the last 10 combined" types. I already made that clear, but you continue to try to redefine my comment as if im simply saying skeptics are anyone who doesnt think it is man made.


My idea of skeptics are those who deny global warming entirely, not its cause or where it is going from here.

There also could be a secondary possibility of you simply tossing aside those who dont believe in climate change( as you emphasized "academics"), but my comment isnt talking about academics, it is talking about people at large who deny it, so that still wouldnt make sense.

I think the most likely thing is you just skimmed my comments as assumed i was talking about anyone who denied itwas human made. which still... wouldnt make all that much sense .

hey, mabye you and I are getting somewhere? That would be great. I am guilty of lumping the sides into two camps.... i can accept that.

all of my arguements are based on what I have laid out as my beleif which is based on the arguments made by the scientists working from the skeptic view. That being an acceptance of physics which says CO2 has the abilty to cause some warming.... but that the warming has been overstated, has not come close to driving the forcing (this is the key word in the actual real debate over CAGW) claimed by Warmists and their models.

I certainly do reject the position that there has been no warming since 1980. But those who make that claim do so sans any scientific backing. Certianly the skepitic academics do not support that view.

However, having posted on this subject pretty extensively on C-D and knowing most of the players for the last several years, I can tell you that the vast majority of skeptics here do not deny the warming that has occured. THey do (as I do) state that what portion of that warming is human caused is likely far less than the warmists have been telling us.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Well other than blindly regurgitating everything you've swallowed from WUWT, that's pretty much all your posts amount to. Calling everyone who disagrees with you 'dumb'.

I think he called me pathetic, actually. I stopped reading his posts after that, so I don't know what other names he called me because I know the difference between valid scientific claims and a blog by a guy who used to be on TV. I can't imagine they were very nice, though.

[Ferd]

giggle. Dallas has been.... COOL this summer!

[KUchief25]

Global warming just isn't "hip" anymore. The hipsters have moved on and the liberals are being left behind by those they try to impress.