+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,048

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

    Thoughts on this?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#12652f1f4c7c


    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.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  2. #2

    Default Re: Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Cri

    Climate change could irreversibly affect future generations and, as such, is one of the most urgent issues facing organizations (Hoffman, 2007; Porter & Reinhardt, 2007). It is being hotly debated in the public and among scientists and economists, yet few articles study global warming or climate change from an organizational and management research perspective (Ansari, Gray, & Wijen, 2011; Goodall, 2008). Most research has focused on the contestation of GHG governance and management (Engels, 2006; Levy & Egan, 2003; Mackenzie, 2009; Okereke, 2007; Wittneben, 2008), while underestimating the still ongoing debate among experts over core assumptions. Although there seems to be consensus that anthropogenic climate change presents a profound global challenge, policy makers and companies have opposed the regulations of GHG emissions. As Levy and colleagues (e.g., Levy & Kolk, 2002; Levy & Rothenberg, 2002) argue, business responses particularly in North America have been substantively ineffective, barely exceeding reputational and brand management issues. For obvious reasons, fossil fuel industries’ stakes in this struggle are high and, not surprisingly, they are at the forefront of the opposition to carbon regulation (Wittneben, Okereke, Banerjee, & Levy, 2009).
    I think it's a neat paper, but it's a pretty clickbait. I thought they were saying there's no consensus on the cause or that there's no consensus on the direction. Both of these exist. They're just trying to separate out alarmism, which is really not new.

    The left is going to say they're crackpots and we have to save the whales from sea level rise in the next ten days or else WE WILL ALL DIE.

    The right is going to drag this onto FOX and conflate it with a lack of any consensus at all among any scientists on the topic.

    They are 100% correct IMO. You have to go directly from real data to really what to do. We aren't capable of that as a species. There's no significant will outside the U.S. and the U.S. is stuck between republican'ts who won't acknowledge data and democan'ts who just use it as a political football to back retarded proposals that achieve other things. I'll never forget when one guy tried to explain to me that alternative energy annihilating coal country was going to "create jobs" just... somewhere else... like oh, and where is that somewhere else? Just happens to be a democratic stronghold right? Is that where the jobs are going after you decimate a republican stronghold?
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Cri

    We can't stay on this planet forever. As VK rightly pointed out, the left hijacks it as a talking point to do commie shit and the "right" has businesses' hand so far up their asses no reasonable action can be taken. Outside of that, the only people that give a fuck about this issue are white and we're 8% of the world population and dwindling rapidly. We need to GTFO the planet and leave the rest of these niggers to fend to themselves.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts