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

[gator421]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's called desperation.

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Works for me.

It's not peer reviewed?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

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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]

Originally Posted by jimgata

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

Link for this totally bogus number?