Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

terrehawk

HR Heisman
Feb 23, 2011
9,602
3,822
113
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of "Global Warming Crisis"


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 hereand here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#1c71d97b171b
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titus Andronicus

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
121,167
113,556
113
Geoscientists and engineers is what I see as the sample population. Not 'climatologists'.

And note that MANY geoscientists work for the fossil fuels industries.
Perhaps they should re-run their survey using 'climatologists' and see if the results are robust....

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 'nugget' pretty much shows this is merely a political hatchet job. They can 'believe' it, but they cannot support that statement. No 'geoscientist' or 'climatologist' has been able to identify a 'natural' source for the recent warming. NONE of them.

Shoot....their own paper even states:

Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists, scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains.

Yep, skepticism by people who are unqualified to understand it.

It's like a bunch of chiropractics and homeopathics claiming Western medicine is 'wrong'....have at it, if you want a chiropractor or homeopathic 'doctor' treating you for a completely curable form of cancer. Because that's essentially what your claim is here.
 

pablow

HR Legend
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2010
16,598
20,139
113
Geoscientists and engineers is what I see as the sample population. Not 'climatologists'.

And note that MANY geoscientists work for the fossil fuels industries.
Perhaps they should re-run their survey using 'climatologists' and see if the results are robust....

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 'nugget' pretty much shows this is merely a political hatchet job. They can 'believe' it, but they cannot support that statement. No 'geoscientist' or 'climatologist' has been able to identify a 'natural' source for the recent warming. NONE of them.

Shoot....their own paper even states:

Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists, scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains.

Yep, skepticism by people who are unqualified to understand it.

It's like a bunch of chiropractics and homeopathics claiming Western medicine is 'wrong'....have at it, if you want a chiropractor or homeopathic 'doctor' treating you for a completely curable form of cancer. Because that's essentially what your claim is here.

Weren't these the very same "scientists" that formed climate change "consensus." They count when their yays, but don't count when they go nay?
 

UNIowaHawk

HR Legend
Jul 22, 2011
17,941
13,498
113
Wonder why you claim it's a "political" hatchet job. Why political? Or is that just your go to?
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,988
82,121
113
Joe answered both of your questions in his original post. Read it again. He said this group of scientists aren't the ones who study climate and that its political because their belief doesn't fit the data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

pablow

HR Legend
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2010
16,598
20,139
113
Joe answered both of your questions in his original post. Read it again. He said this group of scientists aren't the ones who study climate and that its political because their belief doesn't fit the data.

Yes, but these very same non-climate scientists were proudly counted when they agreed with the climate change bunch.
 

UNIowaHawk

HR Legend
Jul 22, 2011
17,941
13,498
113
Joe answered both of your questions in his original post. Read it again. He said this group of scientists aren't the ones who study climate and that its political because their belief doesn't fit the data.
Got it, so if someone's belief doesn't fit the data in my opinion I will then refer to it as a political hatchet job :rolleyes:
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,988
82,121
113
Got it, so if someone's belief doesn't fit the data in my opinion I will then refer to it as a political hatchet job :rolleyes:
Of course. Anytime you form opinions of factual matters based on things other than facts you are being political. Opinions based on data are the only non political opinions that ever can exist on any topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

UNIowaHawk

HR Legend
Jul 22, 2011
17,941
13,498
113
Data is an opinion?
Often times yes. Not all data is equal-- some is more valuable than others. Some data is very subjective and can be manilpulated a magnitude of different ways to meet an agenda.

In addition, interpretation of data is often opinion as well.
 

NoleSoup4U

HR Legend
Oct 7, 2003
16,086
5,232
113
In my car, in a Panera parking lot.
Wonder why you claim it's a "political" hatchet job. Why political? Or is that just your go to?

Global warming gives the government more power, in order to "solve" the problem. That's why many of us look at the man made global warming issue with a healthy skepticism. It also doesn't help that the politicians who are screaming the loudest about it, never do much to change the situation, outside of giving their friends billions of dollars for boondoggles.
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,988
82,121
113
Global warming gives the government more power, in order to "solve" the problem. That's why many of us look at the man made global warming issue with a healthy skepticism. It also doesn't help that the politicians who are screaming the loudest about it, never do much to change the situation, outside of giving their friends billions of dollars for boondoggles.
Another political hatchet job.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
121,167
113,556
113
Weren't these the very same "scientists" that formed climate change "consensus." They count when their yays, but don't count when they go nay?

Nope.
It's "scientists" who are not active publishers on the topic.

It'd be like getting heart surgery opinions from your car mechanic.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
121,167
113,556
113
Got it, so if someone's belief doesn't fit the data in my opinion I will then refer to it as a political hatchet job :rolleyes:

No. Read the actual article itself. It agrees there is a consensus among the actual scientists who work in the field; they've intentionally gone after scientists from other fields, where political views, rather than scientific views, dominate.

Furthermore, if any of those interviewed firmly believe "natural" forces are to blame for the recent warming, none have identified those "natural" sources. We've gone over them on this board many many times. Every denier who has tried to make that claim bails from the discussion when faced with the actual data. Then they fall back on the "conspiracy theories" about "big government".
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa

Lone Clone

HR King
May 29, 2001
110,928
20,933
113
Reminds me of the way everybody bailed on Algore when it turned out his movie was mostly bullshit. Until then, he was cited in the press more than anyone else as an expert -- won a Nobel Prize (shared) and schools were making his propaganda required viewing. As soon as the screen is removed so we can all see the wizard is a humbug, then he's just a layman and nobody who seriously looks at the problem pays any attention to him.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
121,167
113,556
113
Reminds me of the way everybody bailed on Algore when it turned out his movie was mostly bullshit. Until then, he was cited in the press more than anyone else as an expert -- won a Nobel Prize (shared) and schools were making his propaganda required viewing. As soon as the screen is removed so we can all see the wizard is a humbug, then he's just a layman and nobody who seriously looks at the problem pays any attention to him.

Huh?

Al Gore isn't a scientist, so the Earth is flat!!!!:eek:
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
121,167
113,556
113
LMAO!!! Go read their actual article; it doesn't say what Forbes says it does.

It's a frickin survey of Alberta geoscientists, who are predominantly employed by the oil and gas industry - members of the APEGA: Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta); you know....the same Alberta where all the tar sands oil is being mined!

The focus is to understand the demographics and why they hold the positions they do (Newsflash: when people's livelihood depends on fossil fuels extraction - and some of the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet - they tend to ignore the actual science and go with their 'feelings' on the issue).

The conclusion of this paper is to appeal to something these petroleum engineers understand: Risk Management - and that is a focus I've brought up MANY MANY times in these discussions.

/thread
 

ottumwan in tx

HR King
Oct 26, 2002
104,518
16,902
113
if man could figure out how to change the climate in the first place.... couldn't he figure out how to change it back?
 

Lone Clone

HR King
May 29, 2001
110,928
20,933
113
He has said this for years right here.
But not when it counted. And in this case, when I said "you," I was referring less to Joe specifically than to the panic-stricken in the media.

As I've said innumerable times here in the past, I do not have the training or the information to make an informed, intelligent evaluation of the science. I do have enough experience with snake oil salesmen and their ilk to be skeptical of the way this issue has been presented by its adherents over the years (not speaking of Joe in this particular instance).

If advocates really were curious about why there are so many skeptics, they would look first at what the people on their side have said and done for one of the reasons.
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,988
82,121
113
if man could figure out how to change the climate in the first place.... couldn't he figure out how to change it back?
Why does that seem logical to you? A man could figure out how to chop you into dog food. Does it logically hold true that he should be able to turn you back into OiT? Destruction is usually fairly easy.
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,988
82,121
113
But not when it counted. And in this case, when I said "you," I was referring less to Joe specifically than to the panic-stricken in the media.

As I've said innumerable times here in the past, I do not have the training or the information to make an informed, intelligent evaluation of the science. I do have enough experience with snake oil salesmen and their ilk to be skeptical of the way this issue has been presented by its adherents over the years (not speaking of Joe in this particular instance).

If advocates really were curious about why there are so many skeptics, they would look first at what the people on their side have said and done for one of the reasons.
You're not alone. Most people are motivated by feelings. I find that odd, but it is clear that facts and policy are not what motivates most people. Your type doesn't care what the facts are, you care how they are presented. The average person doesn't care what the policy is, you care who explains it to you. I find that thinking backwards. Facts should speak independently of any media sales pitch. Policy, not personality should be what people base opinions on, but it's not. So while I find your thinking wrong and aggravating, I recognize its very common and we would have to play games to win your allegiance.

I question if that's actually a game worth playing. I know the moment you realize we are playing to your needs, you will decide we aren't trustworthy all over again. Which means it's probably best to simply ridicule your type. Because you're not open to reason and facts and will resent appeals to the feelings you use to navigate the world. I judge you are irredeemable in your skepticism. Being skeptical is your identity. You are not capable of ditching it no matter how many reports or graphs or facts you are given. You will never get over some perceived slight. So your value is in serving as the foolish foil who will get raked over the coals every time the topic comes up.
 

ottumwan in tx

HR King
Oct 26, 2002
104,518
16,902
113
Why does that seem logical to you? A man could figure out how to chop you into dog food. Does it logically hold true that he should be able to turn you back into OiT? Destruction is usually fairly easy.
whoa whoa whoa, nobody ever said anything about "destroying" the climate. just changing it a little. tweeking it.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
121,167
113,556
113
I wonder if the OP will come back and post a link to a survey of tobacco farmers that explains how cigarettes and smoking don't cause lung cancer, too....:confused:
 

CeMar_Clone

HR Legend
Jul 20, 2001
14,477
2,327
113
Joe answered both of your questions in his original post. Read it again. He said this group of scientists aren't the ones who study climate and that its political because their belief doesn't fit the data.
These
No. Read the actual article itself. It agrees there is a consensus among the actual scientists who work in the field; they've intentionally gone after scientists from other fields, where political views, rather than scientific views, dominate.

Furthermore, if any of those interviewed firmly believe "natural" forces are to blame for the recent warming, none have identified those "natural" sources. We've gone over them on this board many many times. Every denier who has tried to make that claim bails from the discussion when faced with the actual data. Then they fall back on the "conspiracy theories" about "big government".
The so called consensus of scientists that have supported GW, are not climatologist either.
 

ottumwan in tx

HR King
Oct 26, 2002
104,518
16,902
113
libs think we can go to mars after the repubs destroy the climate , this is why libs love elon musk
 

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
70,683
50,195
113
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa

Latest posts