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.
The Skeptical Science survey finding 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming has drawn an incredible amount of media attention. Hundreds of media stories documented our survey and results. Lead author John Cook and I participated in a number of interviews to discuss the paper, including on Al Jazeera, CNN, and ABC. President Obama even Tweeted about our results to his 31 million followers.
The story has been so popular mainly because our results present a simple but critical message. There is a wide gap between the public awareness and the reality of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming.
A "survey" of scientists' opinions conducted by the business school at the University of Alberta. Alberta, where all the Canadian tar sand oil is mined.
Is it possible the study was funded by oil money?
I wonder...
It doesn't matter, because petroleum engineers aren't in a position to offer professional opinions on the matter. Neither are geologists. A PetE might be able to tell you about projected emissions of the plant he's supervising or designing, a geologist might be able to tell you all you want to know about the core sample she's studying. Nothing about either field qualifies them to offer expert opinion on the causes of global temperature increase. If the OP thinks these survey results prove something, the OP is wrong. In any case, I doubt the Faculty of Business is on the take. And it's not a "survey", it's a survey. Probably entirely valid if you want to know the answer to the question it's asking. It's a chump's game to argue that this proves or disproves the validity of climate scientists' findings, though. Engineers are in no more of a position to offer expert opinions than any other non-expert. Intellectually honest engineers know this. At best, when it comes to topics outside our particular area of expertise, we're educated laymen who know more about science than the average bear.
But as I said, I'm flattered that the OP thinks the opinions of engineers are of particular merit. I will keep that in mind in future.
1) Cherry picking;
2) Fake experts;
3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver; and
5) Conspiracy theories;
Numerous examples of all of these exist here. Especially lately. Ten threads, I'm told.
OK, let's ASSUME that Global Warming is a FACT.
While we are making assumptions, let's ASSUME that the trend has gone so far that it can NOT be stopped.
What are the WORST CASE scenarios of the results?
Sea levels may rise. I have seen estimates varying from 1 inch to 20 feet. Does anybody have a figure that is even close to realistic?
Some land surface that is currently in agricultural production may become to hot to farm. How much land surface is involved, nobody seems to know.
Some land surface that is presently frozen may become suitable for agricultural production. Again, nobody seems to know how much land surface is involved. Will it be enough to offset what becomes desert?
So, ASSUMING that Global Warming is a fact, and ASSUMING that nothing can be done to stop it, and DISREGARDING why it is happening, what is being done at the present time to prepare the world to cope with the inevitable results?
Oh, that's right, NOTHING IS BEING DONE!
I wonder why?
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 people who are employed by an industry that will be negatively affected with stiffer regulations and decreased funding. Climate believers are people who are employed in an industry who will be positively affected with stiffer regulations and increased funding.
I'm sure you can see the conundrum in that.
On the other things you were referring to, you obviously didn't read the article on sagepub.com (and you're not alone). If you had you might have read this:
Quote:
However, these professionals do not only engage in a dispute over the ‘cause’ or content of their claim, i.e., the appropriate definition of an issue or the adequacy of a proposed solution; they also engage in identity and boundary work – to varying degrees – to legitimate themselves as experts and de-legitimate opponents as non-experts, while establishing the cognitive authority of their version of science versus others’ non-science. Defense can result from different worldviews and from identity threats.
Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, non-governmental, and corporate organizations.
It is quite simply one just adapts. I picture liberals standing neck deep on their ocean front property screaming we need to tax everybody in the world to save us all. Meanwhile everybody else goes about their business. They found shark bones in western kansas. I don't think man was around back then yet the earth survived and the wheat now prospers. I wonder if the dino's were running for the hills back then??
It is quite simply one just adapts. I picture liberals standing neck deep on their ocean front property screaming we need to tax everybody in the world to save us all. Meanwhile everybody else goes about their business. They found shark bones in western kansas. I don't think man was around back then yet the earth survived and the wheat now prospers. I wonder if the dino's were running for the hills back then??
Thankfully liberals seem to find homage in coastal cities and regions (snickers). They're not about to move to fly-over country because of some great flood that's going to sweep their progressive bastions away.
Thankfully liberals seem to find homage in coastal cities and regions (snickers). They're not about to move to fly-over country because of some great flood that's going to sweep their progressive bastions away.
If they were alive back in those days they would be screaming the oceans are receding and we will die. So go the alarmists.
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.
