Extent of Antarctic sea ice reaches record levels, scientists say

[Karee 4,191]

The chart is not based on opinion but on a study which reviewed all peer reviewed articles on global warming within the stipulated time period. That review found that of the vast amount of peer reviewed articles that were published, only two dozen denied man made global warming. There are other such reviews out there producing similar results. So that chart is not opinion. Rather, the opinion is formed on the result of said study which the chart illustrates. You know that, of course, but the facts don't align with your belief so you must pretend that you don't know that.

Funny in the post above yours, someone else performed a study and came up with something completely different. If you want to post fairy tales, that's cool. Just don't go around trying to pass them off as facts.

Next you'll be telling us how the tooth fairy left $5 under your pillow last night.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Karee

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Quote

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

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized 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.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “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. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “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. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Source: http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

Too bad that this op-ed has been thoroughly debunked long ago...

JAMES TAYLOR MISINTERPRETS STUDY BY 180 DEGREES

In a Forbes op-ed, James Taylor takes a study that prominently reveals the anti-science influence of oil and gas companies, and spins it to suggest that serious, substantive disagreement exists among relevant scientists on climate change. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the very study he cites, as well as numerous other studies that have surveyed climate scientists.

The claim:

Taylor references a new study that surveyed Canadian engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta. He attaches the headline, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis.” The study divides respondents into 5 groups, and Taylor highlights the fact that only 36% of scientists fell into the category most supportive of climate action. He concludes, “…it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.”

The context:

- The study Taylor references polled members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). Membership in APEGA is a prerequisite to a job with an oil, gas, or mining company, and these jobs dominate its online job board. Alberta, home to the tar sands boom, is Canada’s most oil-rich province, and the petroleum industry is Alberta’s largest employer of engineers and geoscientists.

- The study authors used the APEGA survey as a way to see how extractive industry positions influence scientific views and justifications. They found that people employed by oil and gas companies were much more likely to oppose mainstream climate science. Additionally, the more highly placed in the company, the more vehement the opposition.

- 84% of the respondents to the survey were engineers. This designation includes many subspecialties that have nothing to do with climate, for example electrical engineers and pipeline corrosion specialists.

- Taylor’s focus on the most concerned category of scientists and engineers is misleading. Another 5% of respondents supported moderate action, and an additional 17% believed that humans were influencing the climate, although they were not sure if action was needed. This means that even among a group made up primarily of oil and gas industry engineers, 58% believed that humans are influencing the climate.

Nice try, though.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,191]

Too bad that this op-ed has been thoroughly debunked long ago...

Nice try, though.

climatesciencewatch.org

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

climatesciencewatch.org

Rather than attacking the source, take a look at the study your op-ed author took as the basis for his claim. You'll find that he misrepresents what said study concluded. But you can always be mainstream American on te issue and remain ignorant .

[Pooky 3,841]

Rather than attacking the source, take a look at the study ...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Rather than attacking the source, take a look at the study ...

Not exactly. The op-ed Karee found took a study, turned it on it's head and then drew conclusions that the study itself didn't actually bear out. When bringing this to his attention, rather than taking a quick look at the underlying claim, he could do nothing but attack the source I offered. I did not attack his source. Could have done that, too, but I didn't. Had you paid attention, you would have noticed. But you didn't do that either. Maybe next time, eh?

[Pooky 3,841]

Not exactly. The op-ed Karee found took a study, turned it on it's head and then drew conclusions that the study itself didn't actually bear out. When bringing this to his attention, rather than taking a quick look at the underlying claim, he could do nothing but attack the source I offered. I did not attack his source. Could have done that, too, but I didn't. Had you paid attention, you would have noticed. But you didn't do that either. Maybe next time, eh?

Touched a nerve, I see.

Good. Maybe in the countless other threads out there where you attack the source without bothering to address the content, you might now take your own advice. It would make a change.

Who knows, you might just encourage others to do the same.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Touched a nerve, I see.

Keep telling yourself that. The reality is, you were wrong.

[Pooky 3,841]

Keep telling yourself that. The reality is, you were wrong.

[Curmudgeon 227]

A biased source is not necessarily an unreliable source, although it could be. Critical thinking requires you to evaluate all the available information and make an informed judgement. climatesciencewatch.org is necessarily a biased source, their whole raison d'etre is to present information on the web about current climate issues. There is nothing hidden about the agenda. However, because they want to present information about climate issues does not perforce mean that the information presented is false, or falsely presented. Personally, if a source presents their biased agenda out in the open, I am going to take their claims more seriously than someone who hides their true agenda.

[Karee 4,191]

A biased source is not necessarily an unreliable source, although it could be. Critical thinking requires you to evaluate all the available information and make an informed judgement. climatesciencewatch.org is necessarily a biased source, their whole raison d'etre is to present information on the web about current climate issues. There is nothing hidden about the agenda. However, because they want to present information about climate issues does not perforce mean that the information presented is false, or falsely presented. Personally, if a source presents their biased agenda out in the open, I am going to take their claims more seriously than someone who hides their true agenda.

If it reinforces personal beliefs, that plays a role as well.

[OriZ 3,157]

Touched a nerve, I see.

Good. Maybe in the countless other threads out there where you attack the source without bothering to address the content, you might now take your own advice. It would make a change.

Who knows, you might just encourage others to do the same.

Yeah, cause that's going to happen. I feel like I'm watching the Kardashians. The only thing this hypocritical dysfunctional family of squirmy girls(oh, this time I'm not talking about the Kardashians) can find common ground on is Israel bashing. When they can't unite around that, they go around bashing each other.

[Karee 4,191]

The only thing this hypocritical dysfunctional family of squirmy girls(oh, this time I'm not talking about the Kardashians) can find common ground on is Israel bashing.

That ought to tell you something.

[Pooky 3,841]

Yeah, cause that's going to happen. I feel like I'm watching the Kardashians. The only thing this hypocritical dysfunctional family of squirmy girls(oh, this time I'm not talking about the Kardashians) can find common ground on is Israel bashing. When they can't unite around that, they go around bashing each other.

I prefer to be a little more optimistic in my outlook. You may think the people who frequent this forum are unable to modify their behaviour, or change their views, but you would, in most cases, be wrong. Oh, few people will ever admit it, but I've seen it here and there, and in some rather unlikely suspects.

The key is to encourage people to look at both sides of an argument, rather as Curmudgeon posited in their post above, and discuss the content, even if you disagree with the viewpoint. Because even a source of which you disapprove can have a valid argument, once in a while.

[Curmudgeon 227]

If it reinforces personal beliefs, that plays a role as well.

Of course. I think I am not wrong in saying that the scientists who contribute to the website you objected to as a source do not have an ulterior motive beyond disseminating information that they as scientists have confirmed to be reliable. That is a bit different from a source where non scientists try to debunk 'climate science' based on rumor and speculation. You may say, it's biased because they have a self interest in what they are disseminating to be true - but I would ask, what proof is there of that and how much sense does that make? The only hypothosis I have seen is that it's a ruse to get money from 'the government'. That's a niave and strange thing to believe. Scientist do rely on outside funding for research of course but they don't get money to research into something they know to be false and go live it up in the Bahamas instead. If a hypothesis proves to be untrue or unprovable scientists move on. However, if there is an explanation out there as to why scientists would put forward phoney information on climate to make money, I'm all ears, that really would be quite some gig and mean that all these scientists are not really scientists but scam artists. Could be true, let's see some proof.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Curmudgeon