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

[tarheelbybirth]

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.

Why do you focus on those who have no expertise and ignore the data presented to you? The reason there are so many "skeptics" is because of flatly lying articles like the one detailed in the op. From the "study":

"...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."

Their opinion is that GW is natural. Shocker! Ask them, then. what natural factors are in play. They won't answer you or they will lie. Simple as that. Yet, just getting this BS out in front of eyes sows doubt among those who have little to no understanding of science. Does that describe you, LC? We know it describes many on HROT...are you throwing your lot in with them? If you want to claim natural causes, fine. SHOW THE RESEARCH! That should be simple enough.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Joe and Tarheel remind me of the inquisition.

 

[Lone Clone]

Joe and Tarheel remind me of the inquisition.

You don't look old enough to remember the Inquisition.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Why do you focus on those who have no expertise and ignore the data presented to you? The reason there are so many "skeptics" is because of flatly lying articles like the one detailed in the op. From the "study":

"...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."

Their opinion is that GW is natural. Shocker! Ask them, then. what natural factors are in play. They won't answer you or they will lie. Simple as that. Yet, just getting this BS out in front of eyes sows doubt among those who have little to no understanding of science. Does that describe you, LC? We know it describes many on HROT...are you throwing your lot in with them? If you want to claim natural causes, fine. SHOW THE RESEARCH! That should be simple enough.

 

[Lone Clone]

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.

I'm not sure if you're joking here or you really don't understand the point I made.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Joe and Tarheel remind me of the inquisition.

How so? You want to claim natural causes? All I want to see is the evidence to back it up. Can you do that or not?

 

[cigaretteman]

Good lord OP! Not only is this article from 2013, it's Pepsi on this site and was thoroughly debunked back in February of this year!

Dear Mr. Taylor

Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation –the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!

We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.

Best regards
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...y-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/here-is-some-liberal-science-fiction-for-you.105294/#post-2310864

 

[Joes Place]

I'm not sure if you're joking here or you really don't understand the point I made.

I'm confident that you don't understand the point you made.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

How so? You want to claim natural causes? All I want to see is the evidence to back it up. Can you do that or not?

Nobody expects the HROT Inquisition!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I'm not sure if you're joking here or you really don't understand the point I made.

I fully understood the point you were trying to make. You want to blame the denial on those who take the issue seriously because they didn't "speak up" when Gore was being heralded. It's total BS, of course.

So what's your take on the lie-packed article exposed in the op?

 

[Joes Place]

Good lord OP! Not only is this article from 2013, it's Pepsi on this site and was thoroughly debunked earlier this year!

The Forbes mishmash of the original, actual study is a perfect example of the adage:

"A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on"

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Nobody expects the HROT Inquisition!

Does that mean you can't provide the information requested? Could you share the basis for your "opinion" then? If it's not based on data...what?

 

[naturalmwa]

Nobody expects the HROT Inquisition!

Look at our pretty snowflake. Our new martyr. Victimhood looks good on you.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Does that mean you can't provide the information requested? Could you share the basis for your "opinion" then? If it's not based on data...what?

What information would you accept that doesn't stick exactly to you're religious tenets?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Look at our pretty snowflake. Our new martyr. Victimhood looks good on you.

Yeah, come make me a martyr, I triple dog dare you.

 

[Joes Place]

I fully understood the point you were trying to make. You want to blame the denial on those who take the issue seriously because they didn't "speak up" when Gore was being heralded. It's total BS, of course.

So what's your take on the lie-packed article exposed in the op?

Yep; MANY climate scientists took issue with overstated 'facts' from Gore's movie. While they appreciated that it brought attention to the issue which had been largely ignored, they've commented on the fallacies in the movie for years.

However, places like Breitbart haven't reported any of that, and simple rehash the same garbage about it year after year. It really boils down to where you get your "news" and "science" from.

I certainly wouldn't go to the tobacco industry to ask them about a spot on my lung Xray. But that's pretty much what the deniers here do. They just don't seem to be capable of understanding it.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

What information would you accept that doesn't stick exactly to you're religious tenets?

Peer-reviewed science that establishes a natural cause for the warming Earth and stands up to scrutiny. Kinda like the data that shows a large anthropogenic component. Whatcha got? Anything?

 

[naturalmwa]

Yeah, come make me a martyr, I triple dog dare you.

You already lit yourself on fire.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

You already lit yourself on fire.

I'm definitely on fire:

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Peer-reviewed science that establishes a natural cause for the warming Earth and stands up to scrutiny. Kinda like the data that shows an large anthropogenic component. Whatcha got? Anything?

No you wouldn't, not if it didn't adhere exactly to the tenets of your religion.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm definitely on fire:

I know, I can peg a flamer.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I know, I can peg a flamer.

Evidently you can't. LOL!

 

[Joes Place]

Why do you focus on those who have no expertise and ignore the data presented to you? The reason there are so many "skeptics" is because of flatly lying articles like the one detailed in the op. From the "study":

"...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."

...and yet the OP has vanished like a fart in the wind again....

 

[NoleSoup4U]

...and yet the OP has vanished like a fart in the wind again....

Why would he stick around and wait till you guys tried to burn him at the stake?

 

[naturalmwa]

Why would he stick around and wait till you guys tried to burn him at the stake?

You sound really scared snowflake.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Why would he stick around and wait till you guys tried to burn him at the stake?

Why do that? I would point out that the study he cites doesn't say what the author of the misleading article claims.

From the study:

The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, 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. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life.

The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.

Ten percent (10%) of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. 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.

‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (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.

The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. 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.

So over a third of respondents agree with the consensus forged among climatologist. Another 32% think there are both human and natural factors or don't express an opinion. Slightly less than one-fourth of those surveyed - in an industry heavily dependent on fossil fuel technology - expressed the view that nature was the overwhelming factor. A full fifty percent more accepted that "climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause".

And, remember, these are almost exclusively people who work IN the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Joes Place]

Good lord OP! Not only is this article from 2013, it's Pepsi on this site and was thoroughly debunked back in February of this year!

Dear Mr. Taylor

Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation –the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!

We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.

Best regards
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...y-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/here-is-some-liberal-science-fiction-for-you.105294/#post-2310864

 

[Joes Place]

Why would he stick around and wait till you guys educate him as to the actual content of his original post?

FIFY

 

[naturalmwa]

These threads always go the same. So much fun, but you would think the fools would learn. I guess that's why they are fools.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Good lord OP! Not only is this article from 2013, it's Pepsi on this site and was thoroughly debunked back in February of this year!

Dear Mr. Taylor

Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation –the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!

We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.

Best regards
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...y-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/here-is-some-liberal-science-fiction-for-you.105294/#post-2310864

Nice way of calling the author of the OP's article a liar or an idiot.

 

[cigaretteman]

Nice way of calling the author of the OP's article a liar or an idiot.

Or both.