There IS a Consensus- Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical...

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

..... Of Global Warming Crisis


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.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[shelbygt350]

In the 70s they called it Global Cooling.

In the 90s they called it Global Warming

Now it is Global Climate Change.

Maybe they should call it Global Worship

[rivergator]

Not quite. It's a survey primarily of engineers who work in the petroleum industry. Oh, and they all live in Alberta, Canada.
So we're supposed to believe this represents a consensus of worldwide scientists who have studied the climate?

Taylor, managing editor of The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, recently wrote a Forbes blog post about a new study of professional engineers and geoscientists involved in Alberta, Canada’s petroleum industry.
According to the authors of the study, however, Taylor got most of the details in his post wrong, and Taylor has not corrected or retracted the blog post even though his errors have been pointed out to him. Furthermore, Taylor republished his deceptive and dishonest post at The Heartland Institute this morning, three days after the study’s authors corrected Taylor. Taylor has a made a habit of distorting scientific studies in the past — his new blog post is no different.
Taylor claims in his post that a study of over a thousand professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta is somehow representative of all scientists in the world
But the authors of the study, Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer, wrote in a response at Forbes (full comment reproduced below) that
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 …” (emphasis added)
Taylor’s post is based almost entirely on the incorrect claim that the study’s results are representative. There is no mention that all the study’s respondents were only in Alberta, Canada. There is no mention that they’re all members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). There is no mention that the membership of APEGA is predominantly employed by the Alberta petroleum industry and its regulators. And there is no mention that the authors repeatedly and specifically write in their study that their results are not applicable beyond the respondents and members of APEGA. As the study’s authors say, their results are not representative of scientists in general.
Furthermore, Taylor fails to mention fact that 84% of respondents were actually engineers, not scientists.

It seems like for about the 100th time, we've got someone posting a story claiming global warming is a hoax, based on a study. Yet it seems each and every time, the actual authors of that study come forward and say "No, that's not what we said."

link (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/19/1608431/heartlands-james-taylor-falsely-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/)

[surfn1080]

its called we have no control over climate and the earth for many years has always corrected its self.

[rivergator]

its called we have no control over climate and the earth for many years has always corrected its self.

I think the idea that man cannot possibly affect the climate is a ridiculously naive and limited view of the world.

[bluelang]

There is no such thing as a "peer reviewed survey." Also, your link doesn't work.

Using the term "peer reviewed" on something that isn't an actual peer-reviewed journal is an immediate red flag indicator of the presence of sciencey-ness.

[bluelang]

I can create a "peer-reviewed" poll of a bunch of people who work in some sort of technical industry who all believe intelligent design is real.

Is that science?

[rivergator]

There is no such thing as a "peer reviewed survey." Also, your link doesn't work.

Using the term "peer reviewed" on something that isn't an actual peer-reviewed journal is an immediate red flag indicator of the presence of sciencey-ness.

The whole piece was obviously bogus.

[geauxgator1]

The whole piece was obviously bogus.

Good thing we have the East Anglia climate gate matter to fall back on.

[Dreamliner]

I can create a "peer-reviewed" poll of a bunch of people who work in some sort of technical industry who all believe intelligent design is real.

Is that science?

It would sounds like global warmism to me.

[tegator80]

I can create a "peer-reviewed" poll of a bunch of people who work in some sort of technical industry who all believe intelligent design is real.

Is that science?

Not going to read it. Sounds like non-science refuting other non-science. What a wonderful time to live in. As Thomas Paine said, "These are the times that test men's souls.":plain:

[rounds]

Does the carbon footprint of world-wide wild-fires balance the carbon loss of missing dinosaur farts?

[rivergator]

Good thing we have the East Anglia climate gate matter to fall back on.

assuming you read none of the investigations about that and just settle for cherry picked hysteria

[geauxgator1]

assuming you read none of the investigations about that and just settle for cherry picked hysteria

Oh yes, the cover up of the cover up.

[jdrgator]

Hate to break it to you MJ, but trusting industry folk on climate science, whose livelihoods depend upon denying the existence of a problem, is like trusting the fox to guard the hen house. But let's look deeper into these so-called experts.

From the actual study (http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html) itself:

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. To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy. Then, we describe our research design and methods.The petroleum industry is the largest single private sector investor in Canada (~CAD 35 billion in 2009) (CAPP, 2009) and it is projected that the petroleum industry will contribute CAD 1.7 trillion to Canada’s GDP and create over 456,000 jobs over the next 25 years (Canadian Energy Research Institute, 2009).
Professional engineer (P.Eng.) 69.9 64.4
Professional geologist (P.Geol.)* 10.3 6.4
Professional geophysicist (P.Geoph.)* 3.5 2.0
Dual membership (P.Eng./P.Geol. and/or P.Geoph.* 0.2 0.3
Registered professional technologist (RPT) 0.4 0.4
Engineer in training (E.I.T.) 14.1 14.3
Geologist in training (Geol.I.T.)* 1.3 1.1
Geophysicist in training (Geoph.I.T.)* 0.4 0.3
Fact is, 85% of those surveyed were not climate scientists, but engineers. Only 15% were trained in geology or related fields. In other words, Forbes reporting of the study is highly deceptive. But I'm afraid you seemed to have swallowed their deception without a hint of skepticism. Well done, brotha, well done. ;)

[Emmitto]

Seems that the fact that more than a third of what is essentially a survey of petroleum industry engineers believe in AGW is the story.

[T3goalie]

Cap and trade will solve everything...

[jdrgator]

There is no such thing as a "peer reviewed survey." Also, your link doesn't work.

Using the term "peer reviewed" on something that isn't an actual peer-reviewed journal is an immediate red flag indicator of the presence of sciencey-ness.

It is a peer reviewed journal, though. And it's actually a pretty decent one in the organizational and managerial fields. However, it's not a climate science journal but one with a more sociological/cultural bent--which doesn't mean the findings are bogus, just that Forbes reporting of it was quite deceptive. Actually, I found it to be an interesting study, but based upon the sample reported by the authors, this is not one comprised of academic climate scientists.

[The_Graygator]

That's a screwed up linbk, dude. There might be a virus in it.

[g8trjax]

Cap and trade will solve everything...


Yes, yes, that's the solution. O needs more money to fund his wasteful spending programs....errr combat global warming!

[gator421]

I think the idea that man cannot possibly affect the climate is a ridiculously naive and limited view of the world.

I agree. But, I'm stupid and gullible.

[jimgata]

Check it out, if co2 emissions generated by man was stopped 100%. it would make only a small difference in global climate.
Scientists change their opinion almost daily with new studies. Give them an outcome you want, they will work backwards and give you a reason.
Climate has run in cycles since earth was created and now warmist are of the opinion that man can be the only reason for any climate change.

[enviroGator]

So OP, do you feel a little stupid posting this now?

Will you try to use your brain before you post non-sense again?

[fredsanford]

So a survey of Canadian oilco employees now equals "a consensus of the world's scientists?"

It's this kind of lack of regard for facts that has relegated the GOP and their fans to minor league status.

[jdrgator]

So a survey of Canadian oilco employees now equals "a consensus of the world's scientists?"

It's this kind of lack of regard for facts that has relegated the GOP and their fans to minor league status.

It's called desperation.

[enviroGator]

So a survey of Canadian oilco employees now equals "a consensus of the world's scientists?"

It's this kind of lack of regard for facts that has relegated the GOP and their fans to minor league status.

I'm pretty sure there were some survey's of tobacco exec's which showed there was a "consensus of the world's scientists" that tobacco was actually good for you!

[rivergator]

Here's what strikes me about this stuff. I'm not a climatologist and don't really know what to believe. I know that the great majority of scientists seem to believe that manmade global warming is happening. But it's not unanimous, so I pretty much stay out of the 'It's real/no it's not" arguments.
But it does seem like every time we get another thread from a conservative say "Aha! New study shows global warming doesn't exist ..." the story is bogus. The study never says what the article's writer or the poster claim it says.
Then there's been the phony lists of 'scientists' supposedly rejecting global warming, except many of those allegedly signing them weren't scientists and maybe not even real people.
So - if the global warming skeptics/deniers have a real case, why do they continually come up with phony stuff like this to prove it?

[OaktownGator]

Check it out, if co2 emissions generated by man was stopped 100%. it would make only a small difference in global climate.
Scientists change their opinion almost daily with new studies. Give them an outcome you want, they will work backwards and give you a reason.
Climate has run in cycles since earth was created and now warmist are of the opinion that man can be the only reason for any climate change.
You make a valid point about historical climate cycles, and perhaps about an over emphasis on man's part in any climate forcing... that remains to be seen.

But man has pushed atmospheric CO2 levels almost 40% higher than any peak level in the last several hundred thousand years... and still rising rapidly. That is documented fact.

Not sure how anyone can think there will be no impact with that kind of change.

In fact, there is zero doubt it is causing marine acidification, killing coral and other pH sensitive marine life and will continue to do so. Something else will backfill, no doubt, but how long that takes and whether the backfill species are desirable from a human standpoint (primarily fishing and tourism)... who knows?

Skepticism is healthy, but so is objective recognition of well documented changes.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I think the idea that man cannot possibly affect the climate is a ridiculously naive and limited view of the world.

I think the idea that mankind is the primary cause of the current changes in climate is ridiculously naive and an extremely limited view of the world and a appalling lack of understanding of science.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

There is no such thing as a "peer reviewed survey." Also, your link doesn't work.

Using the term "peer reviewed" on something that isn't an actual peer-reviewed journal is an immediate red flag indicator of the presence of sciencey-ness.

Works for me.

It's not peer reviewed? Says who. You?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Hate to break it to you MJ, but trusting industry folk on climate science, whose livelihoods depend upon denying the existence of a problem, is like trusting the fox to guard the hen house. But let's look deeper into these so-called experts.

From the actual study (http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html) itself:

Fact is, 85% of those surveyed were not climate scientists, but engineers. Only 15% were trained in geology or related fields. In other words, Forbes reporting of the study is highly deceptive. But I'm afraid you seemed to have swallowed their deception without a hint of skepticism. Well done, brotha, well done. ;)

Interesting theory. Are you now asserting that scientists and engineers that work for a living can't be trusted? Yet scientists that rely on government funding and seem to be inventing a "crises" can be trusted?

My goodness.

I expect this from the likes of river and fred, but not from you.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

So OP, do you feel a little stupid posting this now?

Will you try to use your brain before you post non-sense again?

So far, I have not seen any intelligent evidence that this "peer reviewed consensus" is any worse than what the AGW crowd regularly posits as proof.

Certainly not from you, river or blue.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I know that the great majority of scientists seem to believe that manmade global warming is happening.

That is simply not true.


So - if the global warming skeptics/deniers have a real case, why do they continually come up with phony stuff like this to prove it?

As I wrote to another poster, this is no worse than the AGW "proof" of the causes of global warming.

[mdgator05]

So far, I have not seen any intelligent evidence that this "peer reviewed consensus" is any worse than what the AGW crowd regularly posits as proof.

Certainly not from you, river or blue.

How about from the authors?



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


But what would they know about it? They just wrote the paper.

[rivergator]

Interesting theory. Are you now asserting that scientists and engineers that work for a living can't be trusted? Yet scientists that rely on government funding and seem to be inventing a "crises" can be trusted?

My goodness.

I expect this from the likes of river and fred, but not from you.

Really? You post a story that obviously wrong, claim it shows what a "majority of scientists" think and then when it's pointed out that the survey is not about that at all, you respond by trying to insult people?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

More peer reviewed goodness

[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots . [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."

Michael Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin's Press, 1990.

[enviroGator]

So far, I have not seen any intelligent evidence that this "peer reviewed consensus" is any worse than what the AGW crowd regularly posits as proof.

Certainly not from you, river or blue.

So I take it that would be a "no".

[enviroGator]

Interesting theory. Are you now asserting that scientists and engineers that work for a living can't be trusted? Yet scientists that rely on government funding and seem to be inventing a "crises" can be trusted?

My goodness.

I expect this from the likes of river and fred, but not from you.

Here is a theory -

"A survey of scientist and engineers who have absolutely no education or training about a complicated topic should not be used to make conclusions about the topic."

Kind of a simple concept... surprised you missed it.

[jimgata]

Manmade co2 accounts for apprx. 3 1/2% of total co2 in atmosphere.

[enviroGator]

Manmade co2 accounts for apprx. 3 1/2% of total co2 in atmosphere.

Link for this totally bogus number?

[mdgator05]

That is simply not true.




As I wrote to another poster, this is no worse than the AGW "proof" of the causes of global warming.

Except that the surveys in those cases are designed with the purpose of collecting a representative opinion on the opinions of scientists in regards to the causes of global warming. That was not the intent of this article, as stated by the authors explicitly.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Here is a theory -

"A survey of scientist and engineers who have absolutely no education or training about a complicated topic should not be used to make conclusions about the topic."

Kind of a simple concept... surprised you missed it.

My goodness man. Yet you blindly follow all the failed predictions, modeling and the such from those people that you think are trained?

Reality Based Community indeed.

[mdgator05]

My goodness man. Yet you blindly follow all the failed predictions, modeling and the such from those people that you think are trained?

Reality Based Community indeed.

I would define reality-based as being able to accurately report evidence (in this case the survey). You have failed at this task in this thread, as pointed out by the authors of the survey and the associated article.

The results of the survey do not actually say what you nor the author of the Forbes piece claim they do.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I would define reality-based as being able to accurately report evidence

The point of this thread was to poke fun at you guys. The proof offered here is just as accurate and compelling as most of the predictions of the AGW crowd.

To wit;

( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/hansen.gif

Temperature prognosis by the Hansen Group from 1988. The different scenarios assume 1.5% CO2 increase (blue), fixed CO2 emissions (green) and stopped CO2 emissions (red). In reality CO2 emissions have increased about 2.5% per year, which would be more than depicted the the blue curve scenario. The black curve is the actual temperature (smoothed 5-year mean). The Hansen-Model overestimated the temperature by 1,9°C and is thus a full 150% off. Graph supplemented as to Hansen et al. (1988).

In this publication Hansen and his colleagues present the GISS Model II, which simulates climate changes resulting from concentration changes in atmospheric trace gases and airborne aerosols. Here the scientists illustrate three scenarios:

–A: Increase of CO2 emissions of 1.5% per year
–B: fixed increase CO2 emissions after the year 2000
–C: No increase in CO2 emissions after the year 2000

CO2 emissions have increased at rate of about 2.5% since the year 2000 and so according to Hansen’s paper, we would expect a temperature increase greater than the Model A scenario. Figure 1 shows all three of Hansen’s scenarios as well as the real measured global temperature.

This is a graph showing the difference between what was predicted by the AGW Climate models and what actually happened. Those models were "peer reviewed." Those models supposedly were "consensus" based , in that supposedly the majority of scientists believed the elements used accurately could predict global climates.



Given how far they were off, why are we to believe anything those guys anymore than we can believe the results of this peer reviewed survey?

You guys can't have it both ways.

[fredsanford]

The point of this thread was to poke fun at you guys. The proof offered here is just as accurate and compelling as most of the predictions of the AGW crowd.

To wit;

( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )

This is a graph showing the difference between what was predicted by the AGW Climate models and what actually happened. Those models were "peer reviewed." Those models supposedly were "consensus" based , in that supposedly the majority of scientists believed the elements used accurately could predict global climates.

Given how far they were off, why are we to believe anything those guys anymore than we can believe the results of this peer reviewed survey?

You guys can't have it both ways.

So you quote oilco employees and one of the most famous deniers in Hansen as your evidence. Please.

Can you find a Hannity quote, too?

[OaktownGator]

Manmade co2 accounts for apprx. 3 1/2% of total co2 in atmosphere.
If you're trying to say that we are adding 3.5% more CO2 to the atmosphere annually than is normally added through other natural processes, I don't know if that is correct, but it sounds reasonable.

Sounds like a low number, but what is the impact?

How much of the additional 3.5% can natural carbon sinks (mainly the ocean and plant life) absorb?

Well, we're rapidly removing one of the natural carbon sinks... our forests. So we're adding more CO2 , and removing some of the ability of nature to deal with it.

And what of adverse impacts of the ocean absorbing more CO2 - marine acidification?

3.5% sounds trivial, but it's not trivial in context to the impacts to a balanced system.

For reference, consider an old chart noting changes to atmospheric CO2 levels (current level is 396ppm - way off this scale which tops off at 330ppm):

http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide_2.gif

[jdrgator]

Interesting theory. Are you now asserting that scientists and engineers that work for a living can't be trusted? Yet scientists that rely on government funding and seem to be inventing a "crises" can be trusted?

My goodness.

I expect this from the likes of river and fred, but not from you.

No. I am saying that your op and the characterization that it somehow reflects the general opinion of actual climate scientists is nonsense. You should have done some more reading.

I don't know anything about the engineers or geologists in the sample beyond what was reported by the study's authors, but it does stand to reason that if their paychecks depend on a private industry thriving, that there would be more of a tendency to be skeptical about an issue that would threaten it. That's a pretty logical assumption to make. That they found what they did, should not be surprising, generally speaking.

Academics are shielded to a large degree by tenure/academic freedom so as not to be unduly influenced by government/politicians. So while there are certainly many problems in the academy, the alleged influence of government money in shaping opinion is actually not really one of them. Now of course, one could cite and criticize the IPCC process given the political bent to it--and I would agree quite a bit--given their consensus driven process, but the IPCC is actually just one part, and really in many ways, it's very small compared to the research that goes into the peer reviewed journals, which is where the real advancements in knowledge are published.

As for river and fred, I actually think they are spot on about this issue; I might disagree with some of the way either of them characterize things at times, but that's more about style than substance. And, hey, river's post above is terrific. He fully acknowledges not being an expert while taking a pretty centrist and reflective position.

[mdgator05]

The point of this thread was to poke fun at you guys. The proof offered here is just as accurate and compelling as most of the predictions of the AGW crowd.

To wit;

( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/hansen.gif



This is a graph showing the difference between what was predicted by the AGW Climate models and what actually happened. Those models were "peer reviewed." Those models supposedly were "consensus" based , in that supposedly the majority of scientists believed the elements used accurately could predict global climates.



Given how far they were off, why are we to believe anything those guys anymore than we can believe the results of this peer reviewed survey?

You guys can't have it both ways.

I have no problem with you believing the results of this peer-reviewed study. It sounds very interesting. However, you still haven't accurately done that. If that was your goal, you should have accurately reported the results.

[dangolegators]

It's really surprising to me that the number is so high (the 36% that believe GW is man-caused and a serious problem). 84% of the respondents are oil industry engineers. That's a conservative group in a conservative industry. Of course as oil industry engineers, most of them have no more knowledge of climate science than you or I do.

[myamiG8R]

i am a bit concerned about "global weight displacement"... i mean when you put even a small amount of excess weight on the surface of a spinning top as compared to other areas of that top, the top begins to wobble off axis... scientists have expressed a similar concern for the earth at places like NYC, which, in 10 square miles, has a gross weight to surface area ratio that is generally 500x that of remote land areas or oceans... eventually, it is predicted, this excess weight would cause a significant shift in the earth's axis... those who have reviewed that data agree that NYC's relative proximity to the equator have allowed the earth to stabalize, but that if the next NYC were, say, Helsinki and 10,000,000 people and descended in an area the size of manhattan, a significant shift in the earth's rotation would likely occur.

[OaktownGator]

The point of this thread was to poke fun at you guys. The proof offered here is just as accurate and compelling as most of the predictions of the AGW crowd.

To wit;

( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/hansen.gif



This is a graph showing the difference between what was predicted by the AGW Climate models and what actually happened. Those models were "peer reviewed." Those models supposedly were "consensus" based , in that supposedly the majority of scientists believed the elements used accurately could predict global climates.



Given how far they were off, why are we to believe anything those guys anymore than we can believe the results of this peer reviewed survey?

You guys can't have it both ways.
Certainly the models have been demonstrably incorrect to date. My primary concerns about climate models are that:
- they likely over value the forcing impacts of CO2 levels (which have historically trailed temperature), and/or undervalue the impacts of radiation.
- they don't account for historical patterns related to radiation we receive - primarily the longer term orbital patterns that cause significant shifts in radiation received and significant impact to climate

Related to these cycles, we appear roughly due for long term cooling (tens of thousands of years) into a major ice age... assuming CO2 is a forcing agent, what levels are required to offset that cycle, if it's even possible?

Without seeing that clearly understood and articulated, I see zero value in pushing the alarm button wrt climate change, and certainly we shouldn't be driving regulations or any expensive policy shifts based on fear of climate change.

That said, we should be shifting to cleaner, sustainable and more diversified energy sources, regardless. Our reliance on relatively dirty and increasingly scarce fossil fuels, as huge populations in countries like China and India rapidly increase their use of the same fuels causes ongoing health damage, increased health care costs, adverse impacts to marine life due to marine acidification, and major economic and defense risks. These are all well understood problems and risks, whereas AGW is not.

Fossil fuel industry execs and lobbyists have money to make, so they are obviously going to fight tooth and nail against any efforts to shift or diversify the energy sources we rely on. I don't blame them - that's how capitalism works.

But keeping our eggs in their basket is clearly against our national interests, and the whole AGW debate is an easy issue for them to rail against, and provide a distraction from discussing the more concrete, readily understandable problems we face.

[rivergator]

The point of this thread was to poke fun at you guys. The proof offered here is just as accurate and compelling as most of the predictions of the AGW crowd.
.

Actually, your point was that the survey showed what a majority of scientists think about global warming. And it clearly doesn't.

[neisgator]

We know for a fact that oil engineers are conservative?

Interesting.

Never seen a poll on that one???

[Row6]

According to a real peer reviewed study published by the National Academy of Science, over 95% of active climate scientists agree that AGW is real and a threat. Those who disagreed correlated with their distance from actual research.

Equating the OP nonsense with the scientific results published by the most respected association of scientists in America and perhaps the world demonstrates either the power of wishful thinking or the weakness of some minds.

[neisgator]

So glad our local fake global warming expert showed up

[jimgata]

In 2011 the percent of co2 in the atmosphere was 0.039369%.
In the last 25 years co2 has risen apprx. 13% with man made co2 contributing apprx.31/2% of that 13%.

If man made co2 contributes mightily to global warming a concentrated effort to just reduce coal burning efficiency by just 1% would reduce global warming greater than all the billions being wasted on so many green energy programs, that will do little or nothing.
All it takes is a little common sense by those in power to solve a problem, instesd of governing and implementing rules and rergulations in a panic manner.

[OaktownGator]

In 2011 the percent of co2 in the atmosphere was 0.039369%.
In the last 25 years co2 has risen apprx. 13% with man made co2 contributing apprx.31/2% of that 13%.

If man made co2 contributes mightily to global warming a concentrated effort to just reduce coal burning efficiency by just 1% would reduce global warming greater than all the billions being wasted on so many green energy programs, that will do little or nothing.
All it takes is a little common sense by those in power to solve a problem, instesd of governing and implementing rules and rergulations in a panic manner.

I'd sure like to know what your source for this 3.5% number.

Anyway, it is incorrect. It is well known that while man made CO2 emissions are not a large percentage of global emissions, they are THE driving factor for 100% of the recent increases in atmospheric CO2.

The issue again, is that the earth is pretty well balanced in handling natural emissions with natural absorption, or sinks. It can only handle a certain percentage of what we add to natural emissions (maybe half if I recall correctly)... the rest drives up atmospheric CO2.

Looking at historical CO2 levels over the past several hundred thousand years, it is clear that we are pushing CO2 levels far above their natural peak levels.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png/380px-Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

[jimgata]

All over google. Just google % of co2 in atmosphere. numerous articles
co2 is a minute part of the atmosphere and man's contribution is even smaller. A growth in world's population and clearing land for such growth would add a good part of that.
oil and coal burning would be just a small part of the growth of the increase.
co2 emission have fluctuated wildly over the thousands of years, but when man contributed little or nothing there were times of great increase, but now man is only responsible for the latest growth?
I guess the earth and its atmosphere has stopped evolving and man now only causes any change.
The chart above lists parts per million and a growth of 50 parts per million is SMALL.

[OaktownGator]

All over google. Just google % of co2 in atmosphere. numerous articles
co2 is a minute part of the atmosphere and man's contribution is even smaller. A growth in world's population and clearing land for such growth would add a good part of that.
oil and coal burning would be just a small part of the growth of the increase.
co2 emission have fluctuated wildly over the thousands of years, but when man contributed little or nothing there were times of great increase, but now man is only responsible for the latest growth?
I guess the earth and its atmosphere has stopped evolving and man now only causes any change.
The chart above lists parts per million and a growth of 50 parts per million is SMALL.
I understand the google and the interwebs and all that stuff. Never have I seen this 3.5% number your throwing around. Hence the request for a source for that number.

Regardless, the graph is pretty self explanatory and illustrative of what's going on in comparison to historical peak CO2 levels.

Drilling in a little, in 1800, CO2 levels were at about average peak levels for the three previous peaks in the last four hundred thousand years... about 275ppm.

By 1900, they'd risen a bit to almost 300ppm (25ppm increase in 100 years), and already higher than any of the previous peaks in the last several hundred thousand years.

By 1960, they'd risen to about 320ppm (20ppm increase in 60 years). We're now at 396ppm (76 ppm increase in 52 years). See a pattern?

We're now growing at over 2.2 ppm annually (much faster than average rate for the past 50 years) and expected to continue increasing rapidly, as India and China join the modernization party.

396 ppm is 120ppm or about 40% above historic peak levels.

By 2050, at the current rate of increase we'll be over 500ppm and some estimates are 550ppm, or double the historic peak levels for the last several hundred thousand years.

Natural change?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vRsObFw-TN0/S22fpfJU2rI/AAAAAAAAAOE/LqkaYlFunKo/s320/_CO2+Rise.jpg

[wygator]

Historic CO2 levels appear differently on different time scales. Please also note the total lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels:

http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif

[wygator]

When you consider this graph, maybe we need to welcome man-made warming as an offset:

http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/images/icecoredatahistorical02.gif

[wygator]

A new study in Scienceexpress (Science magazine’s pre-paper-publication outlet) by Yude Pan of the U.S. Forest Service and colleagues finds that the net carbon sink in terrestrial forest systems across the globe has been expanding, taking up ever more carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere. (A “sink” is a place where something—carbon dioxide, heat, water, etc…winds up.)...

...The U.S. forest C sink increased by 33% from the 1990s to 2000s, caused by increasing forest area, growth of existing immature forests that are still recovering from historical agriculture, grazing, harvesting, and environmental factors such as CO2 fertilization and N deposition.

...When it comes to the actual numbers forwarded by Pan et al., there is not a lot that is particularly surprising. The net annual forest sink determined by the Pan et al. team was 1.04 PgC in the 1990s increasing to 1.20 in the 2000s (through 2007). The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported the annual net terrestrial carbon sink to be about 1.0 Gt/year for the 1990s, a value pretty similar to Pan et al.’s numbers.

And the good news reported by Pan et al. that the terrestrial carbon sink continues to expand, is also not particularly shocking. After all, we have known (and reported here at World Climate Report) for some time that the percentage of anthropogenic CO2 emitted each year that actually stays in the atmosphere has remained pretty constant for several decades, despite ever-rising CO2 emissions from human activities. In order for that to be the case, the earth’s total (land + ocean) carbon sink must be expanding. And as we know that CO2 makes plants grow faster, better, stronger, more nutritious, more water use efficient, etc., is seems only reasonable to expect that the terrestrial carbon sink in the world’s forest systems is expanding.

link (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/07/19/earth-getting-greener-not-browner/)

[oragator1]

link (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/07/19/earth-getting-greener-not-browner/)

I think it's long been believed that increased carbon in the atmosphere leads to quicker growth of plant and trees, which is a good thing because it does offset some of the extra carbon in the atmosphere. The question is how much in relation to how much we are putting in, the claim in the article you linked that it is remaining constant is either not true or a clever semantic argument:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

The other factor which is mentioned in what you posted, is that the US is actually reforesting at a surprising rate. As parks and natural areas expand, people turn from farming to other uses for their land and people generally want to see more trees, the covered area is still growing. As a matter of fact, for the east coast there is much more tree cover now than there was in 1800 amazingly. There is only one small stand of virgin growth trees in all of Maryland and one of the only ones in PA is a state park (Cook Forest), that's how rare trees were 200 years ago. I hope the trend continues, it's good for carbon sink, it's good for wildlife and it's good for people too to have places like that to go to.

[GatorAvatar]

Not quite. It's a survey primarily of engineers who work in the petroleum industry. Oh, and they all live in Alberta, Canada.
So we're supposed to believe this represents a consensus of worldwide scientists who have studied the climate?

It seems like for about the 100th time, we've got someone posting a story claiming global warming is a hoax, based on a study. Yet it seems each and every time, the actual authors of that study come forward and say "No, that's not what we said."

link (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/19/1608431/heartlands-james-taylor-falsely-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/)

Thanks river. The ignorance that's displayed here sometimes makes me lose confidence in humanity.

[OaktownGator]

Absolutely true that there have been wild variations in CO2 levels over the hundreds of millions of years time scale. And times when we had far greater CO2 levels, along with far higher temps. Many reasons for that I'm sure, with the level of volcanic activity being a big factor.

But over the past several hundred thousand years, we've had a pretty steady cycle and range of CO2 levels within that cycle... as you note in another post.

As to correlation, there certainly does appear to be a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in this larger scale timeline, from about 400 million years ago to present, with a notable exception at the boundary of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

Historic CO2 levels appear differently on different time scales. Please also note the total lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels:

http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif

Pretty sure we've had this conversation in the past, regarding the chart below. Definitely a reason I think the GW alarmism and calls for expensive regulations or scams like cap and trade, are unwise.

If CO2 is a significant forcing agent, it should be considered in context of the cycle you highlight below.

When you consider this graph, maybe we need to welcome man-made warming as an offset:

http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/images/icecoredatahistorical02.gif

[neisgator]

I'm sure we have had 1000s of years where it's been on a steady rise

[g8tr80]

Look, I've got about 25 years left on this planet. Can we shelve this issue to say 2040? Then you can all knock each other out over it.

[Emmitto]

Look, I've got about 25 years left on this planet. Can we shelve this issue to say 2040? Then you can all knock each other out over it.

The real root of the issue. Seriously. Do people here now owe people who will (probably) be here 200 years from now? Do we voluntarily lower our standard of living for the possibility of raising it generations down the line?

If the answer is no, then all the sniping over the science is unnecessary.

[wygator]

Biblically, we are called to be stewards of the earth. Don't we care about leaving a legacy for our own great-great-great grandchildren?

[jimgata]

A big majority ot our great-great- great grandchildren will probably do what our great-great,great,grand and even our children will do. Pi** away any inheritance.
I don't think anyone wants to destroy the planet, but there are different ways to solve a problem, if there really is one, than to simply destroy a way of life, based on maybe something will happen. If more emphasis would be given to better effiency in coal and petroleum use, it would cut dowm more on co2 emissions than 10 years of windmill and solar chasing. This is not just my opinion.

[gatorpa]

I'd sure like to know what your source for this 3.5% number.

Anyway, it is incorrect. It is well known that while man made CO2 emissions are not a large percentage of global emissions, they are THE driving factor for 100% of the recent increases in atmospheric CO2.

The issue again, is that the earth is pretty well balanced in handling natural emissions with natural absorption, or sinks. It can only handle a certain percentage of what we add to natural emissions (maybe half if I recall correctly)... the rest drives up atmospheric CO2.

Looking at historical CO2 levels over the past several hundred thousand years, it is clear that we are pushing CO2 levels far above their natural peak levels.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png/380px-Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

But go back further than 400k yrs and what do we see wrt to c02 levels?

They have been far higher in the past...what is the efect of the rise? Hanssen sure missed the mark with his temp prediction from 1990..

[Row6]

Back to the OP, there is a clear and proven consensus among climate scientists, and it is that AGW best explains the global warming since the Industrial Revolution, and that it may dramatically impact our living environment over the next century in ways unknown but potentially damaging agriculturally, politically, and demographically.

"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]...


No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

One can logically argue that the consensus may be wrong - though for most laymen, that would be a foolish bet - but one can't logically argue - as the OP attempts to - that there is no consensus, or that it is the opposite of the real one.

[OaktownGator]

But go back further than 400k yrs and what do we see wrt to c02 levels?
True. If you go back much further you see much higher CO2 levels... and much higher temps.

They have been far higher in the past...what is the efect of the rise? Hanssen sure missed the mark with his temp prediction from 1990..
Good question. Models to date have certainly not accurately predicted impact of CO2 levels on global temps.

Assuming the cycles of the past several hundred thousand years are normal, we should roughly be due for a long term major down turn in global temperatures.

Perhaps the models just need to be adjusted to account for the longer term cycles, and figure out what CO2 levels are most likely to maintain relatively stable temps (if that is possible).

[tegator80]

An interesting new twist in AGW:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/03/02/anthropocene-climate-farming/1955041/

Climate change dates back to dawn of first farmers

Dan Vergano USA TODAY @dvergano7a.m. EST March 2, 2013

Deforestation by early farmers likely kicked off an era of man-made climate change long before our present era, suggests a climate scientist taking a hard look at agriculture's early effects...

I see this article as a "glass half empty/half full" kind of hypothesis. The conspiracists will be emboldened that man is truly omnipresent and must be stopped whereas the naysayers are going to go into full attack mode.

In other words, more of the same.

[DaveFla]

Isn't it interesting that many of those who believe in this Man-made Global Warming religion are also the same people who are so vocal against those who believe in Intelligent Design or those people who believe in God?

I mean, both require the same leap of faith to make their theories fit.

Hypocritical? Much?

[MastaG8r]

How about from the authors?

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 [i.e. more experienced] oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions [i.e. less experienced].

But what would they know about it? They just wrote the paper.

You seem to assign some credibility to the authors of the study. According to them, a majority of geoscientists oppose emissions regulations such as the Kyoto Protocol.

I guess some of our friends on the Left might have been bothered by that...at any point prior to five years ago, when George Bush was the one who opposed Kyoto. But now? Not so much, since 0bama hasn't supported it either. Blindly partisan hypocrites.

[rivergator]

You seem to assign some credibility to the authors of the study. According to them, a majority of geoscientists oppose emissions regulations such as the Kyoto Protocol.


A majority of mostly engineers who work in the oil industry in Alberta ....

[MastaG8r]

A majority of mostly engineers who work in the oil industry in Alberta ....So what? I guess if you don't understand anything about the scientific bases for their opinions you can just pull a fredsanford and dismiss them out-of-hand as agenda-driven. Then the intellectually consistent thing to do would be bow out of the debate altogether, since if that's the criteria for evaluating opinions on climate change or emissions regulations then there aren't any valid ones. Obviously people on both sides of the debate stand to profit from advancing their side of it.

[rivergator]

So what? I guess if you don't understand anything about the scientific bases for their opinions you can just pull a fredsanford and dismiss them out-of-hand as agenda-driven. Then the intellectually consistent thing to do would be bow out of the debate altogether, since if that's the criteria for evaluating opinions on climate change or emissions regulations then there aren't any valid ones. Obviously people on both sides of the debate stand to profit from advancing their side of it.

So what? The study was presented here as proving what a majority of scientists think about global warming. It clearly doesn't do that.

[mdgator05]

You seem to assign some credibility to the authors of the study. According to them, a majority of geoscientists oppose emissions regulations such as the Kyoto Protocol.

I guess some of our friends on the Left might have been bothered by that...at any point prior to five years ago, when George Bush was the one who opposed Kyoto. But now? Not so much, since 0bama hasn't supported it either. Blindly partisan hypocrites.

Actually, the authors explicitly don't state that. Stop misrepresenting their thoughts on the matter, which have already been posted on this thread. I will post them here again:

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

[MastaG8r]

Actually, the authors explicitly don't state that. Stop misrepresenting their thoughts on the matter, which have already been posted on this thread. I will post them here again:No you stop misrepresenting them, am posting from my phone but my post you're quoting included a direct quote from the letter which you omitted when you re-posted it. Majority say feh on emissions regulation

[mdgator05]

No you stop misrepresenting them, am posting from my phone but my post you're quoting included a direct quote from the letter which you omitted when you re-posted it. Majority say feh on emissions regulation

I posted the letter in its entirety. Maybe your phone finds new paragraphs in letters. But no, your comment did not contain any part of the response from the authors of the research paper to the article that misrepresented their research.

That letter has been widely distributed. It is posted on the comments section of the Forbes piece and has been sent to a variety of media as the standard response to those inquiring about the issue. There are 6 paragraphs (two of which are one line long) within the body of the letter. It is listed as a comment from Lianne Lefsrud (the lead author) in the comments section and has been sent to other media who have emailed her about the issue as the author's response.

[MastaG8r]

I posted the letter in its entirety. Maybe your phone finds new paragraphs in letters. But no, your comment did not contain any part of the response from the authors of the research paper to the article that misrepresented their research.YES I DID, I quoted lines starting with, "Correct interpretations would be..." If you want to parse and minse words and argue with my interpretation of what they said then go ahead but stop lying, I did include a direct quote from the letter in my post.

[mdgator05]

YES I DID, I quoted lines starting with, "Correct interpretations would be..." If you want to parse and minse words and argue with my interpretation of what they said then go ahead but stop lying, I did include a direct quote from the letter in my post.

Okay now I see it, you quoted me quoting them. Simple mistake as I looked at my quoting of you, which wipes out the fact that you quoted me quoting them. Of course, I did not omit that quote from the second time I posted the letter as you lied about.

You are still misrepresenting them. They said: "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 [i.e. more experienced] oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions [i.e. less experienced]."

You said: "According to them, a majority of geoscientists oppose emissions regulations such as the Kyoto Protocol."

That is not what they said. They said that more geoscientists opposed regulations than non-geoscientists. They did not say anything about a majority. So you are again misrepresenting what they said.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Erica Martinson reports that the House hearing on global warming has been canceled this morning, due to the snowstorm that struck Washington D.C. last night.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee announced early Wednesday that it’s postponing its environmental subcommittee’s scheduled 10 a.m. hearing on the state of the science behind climate change. As a reason, it cited “weather.”


From the Washington Examiner

[mdgator05]

From the Washington Examiner

Come on you really are better than the whole "it snows somewhere that has always had snow, therefore, there can't be global warming."

Trust me, if global warming was decided by the temperature in DC, we would have pretty definitive proof, as every year I have lived in the region has been warmer than the year before. It does look like March this year will be considerably cooler than March last year (which was the warmest March in history), but I walked outside late at night without a coat on more than a couple of times this January.

[jimgata]

Check out the 1930's, pretty damn hot decade. It is debatable, whether it could be the hottest decade on record. If it isn't, there is very little difference in it and the hottest decade.

[oragator1]

From the Washington Examiner

I am stuck at home in the snow (now rain). We average about 2-3 inches of snow a year in March and have had some big storms the first week or so.

[cocodrilo]

I think the idea that man cannot possibly affect the climate is a ridiculously naive and limited view of the world.

Remember this old joke?

Q: What happens when the smog lifts in Los Angeles?

A: UCLA.