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

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Jul 10, 2013.

  1. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,142
    Likes Received:
    976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,048
    more fuel for the fire

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

    0 better get those additional carbon rules in place quick before people realize that the modeling is not anywhere close to accurate to what ahs actually occurred over the last 20 years
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    The study is of "earth scientists and engineers", not "scientists" as your thread title misleadingly claims.
  3. tim85

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,141
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,147
    Lol, are 'earth scientists' not scientists? The point remains. Skeptics abound more and more.
  4. oldgator

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    the writer of the article cited in OP(James Taylor---not the musician)

    is a fairly high up member of Heartland Institute

    here is from wiki a brief description of the heartland Institute. Of Course wiki is not an authoritative source. However there are numerous links in the Wiki reference to Heartland Institute that clearly demonstrate a very political, very biased, very questionable activities of Heartland Institute)

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=HLJOYVMG8EB8l9yNdkbTSg&bvm=bv.48705608,d.eWU
    "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian[2] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies.[3][4][5][6] The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and has a full-time staff of 40, including editors and senior fellows.[7] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing[8] global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism."

    In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[9][10][11] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[12] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[13] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.[14]"

    The Heartland Institute website itself describes itself as being anti-environmentalist
    regulation(in other words businesses should go unchecked, unregulated, and not be held accountable for damage to people or the environment(see Heartland Institute advocating for Phillip Morris and the tobacco industry).


    basically the OP is posting a con job effort to deceive people with the spin of someone the OP implies is not biased.
  5. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    12,533
    Likes Received:
    374
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,364
    A survey of petroleum experts Experts discounts MMGW? Really?
  6. GatorRade

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,781
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +596
  7. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    The experts in the field - those who study climate - are not "earth scientists" but "cimate scientists" though some overlap could occur. 97% of climate scientist - according to a study published by the National Academy of Sciences - agree that AGW is occurring and is likely a threatening event. Engineers are not scientists.
  8. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,807
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,787
    Yep, this is a survey of geoscientists and engineers involved in the petroleum industry in Alberta, Canada. Hardly representative of what the world's scientists think. And if you read farther down on that story, you see the actual authors of the study responding and saying the Forbes piece is very misleading.
  9. oldgator

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    in cae anyone want to accuse me of supporting the theory of global warming. I have my own beleifs on that(mainly that mankind is contibuting to a potential problem but there is no hard proof that the damge done by man is severe or long lasting).

    My chief beef regarding the debate over Global Warming is that it's a nice thing for environmentalists and corporations and others to debate. But that there is a far more pressing issue for the U.S.

    I refer to the heavy damage to America in terms of death, injuries, property damage due to weather, etc. Those damages have increased markedly over the years. Most of the increase attributable to population growth in areas susceptible to damage from weather, etc.

    So, to me, the important thing is that our country invest its efforts to revamping and developing infrastructure for areas most likely to suffer weather, etc damage(whether or not it is natural, man caused, or both).

    Such efforts would likely help the jobless issue, help economically in short and long term, etc.


    I view both ends of the Global Warming debate to be a problem in that they divert us from the issue I described above.
  10. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,640
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +527
    :laugh:

    Hmmmm

    These non scientists have no skin in the game so maybe they are onto something...

    Not that it would help the indoctrinated...
  11. wgbgator

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,902
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,584
    Wut? I would say being employed by the petroleum industry is "skin in the game."
  12. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Your first sentence could not be more wrong. CO2 lasts a very long time in the atmosphere and the potential damage could therefore be not only significant but certainly long lasting. Most scinetists agree we have already reached the point where reversing any possible damage in the pipeline is not possible this century, though we can certainly make it worse.
  13. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,807
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,787
    I'm sure this study was trumpeted by rightwingers everywhere when it came out. Doesn't matter that it's not what the Forbes writer claims it is.
  14. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Or the OP poster on TH.
  15. LittleBlueLW

    LittleBlueLW Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,538
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,239
    Hey old-

    you got an old fashioned lefty circle jerk goin on here.
  16. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,640
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +527
    Fair point on the petroleum scientists. Are you saying the meteorologists and all the scientists referenced are petroleum industry focused?
  17. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,807
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,787
    I don't believe there were any meteorologists. All surveyed were members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, which I think is dominated by those in the oil and gas industry.
  18. oldgator

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    "Hey old-

    you got an old fashioned lefty circle jerk goin on here."



    1. I'm a liberal---yet if you care to read this thread you'd notice that some libs differ in point of view regarding CO's from my own position in the matter.
    2. for the most part we cited sources rather than our own opinions

    two things I agree with you on in regard to this being a lib circle jerk(and I am disgusted by it)-
    1. some of the libs ganging up on con posters and getting personal in comments towards cons
    2. That a number of lib posters said the same opinion as each other but not adding references to sources.

    I never say circle jerks are only done by cons. I recognize that such poor conduct is typical by ultras(be they liberal or con)

    on the whole, I agree with you that this thread has turned into a lib circle jerk. Pretty disgusting environment in which you are posting and having to put up with personal attacks, etc. And I praise your coming forth and calling it for what it is---a circle jerk that is intended(consciously or subconsciously) to intimidate cons from posting differing point of view on the subject.

    All I can say is I hope both you and I can lead effort to challenge such tactics regardless of who is doing them.

    I differ with you on many topics. But I want to read and hear your differing point of view. without the ugliness and wrongfullness of tactics such as circle jerks, personal attacks, etc that have as a goal the gagging of differing points of views.

    Once again, thank you for naming this a circle jerk by the libs. I abhor such tactics?behavior coming from left or right,etc.

    lib, con, etc we are people with human vices. And in group settings(such as message boards) those vices often get fed and amplified by group/thug mentality(whether from left or right)
  19. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26

    You're kidding right? The thread was started by a right wing TH member, but now it's a liberal cj? Why don't you name names and challenge those who you specifically think are off base?

    PS I don't see any "sources" in either of your posts on this thread, including this one denouncing unnamed others for not citing sources.
  20. oldgator

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    regardless of whether or not a lib or a con started the thread. The initial surge of posters following the OP were liberals(including myself). And a number of posters posted sources, etc. But a number of liberal posters simply made gratuitous comment of their opinion supporting a lib poster or posted comments that were aimed more at insulting a con poster than arguing against the argument made by the con poster.

    here is a definition from online urban dictionary in regards to 'circle jerk' as the term applies to message boards.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=message board

    once a circle jerk is occurring it can take on a gang/thug mentality that comes out when a person of differing point of view posts something the circle jerkers don't like. At that point you can expect some of the circle jerkers to make personal attacks on the poster who had differing point of view. Attacking the poster instead of the argument the poster posted.

    I differ from littlebluelw on many threads in terms of our points of view. And rather heatedly. But seeing his post regarding a lib circle jerk occurring in this thread I took the time to look over the thread and saw that he was accurate in his calling it a lib circle jerk.

    What ends up happening with circle jerks and other tactics of intimidation
    ---it rallies the base(in the case of this thread---ultra-libs and libs)
    ---rallies the opposing base(in the case of this thread---cons and ultra cons)
    ---and moderates and independents are likely turned off by the poor conduct of the circle jerkers(in this thread libs) and they would tend to drift to favor opposing point of view)

Share This Page