The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[DiStefano]

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/03/04/energy-ceo-climate-change-is-real-and-driven-by-humans/

obviously bought off by that big tree-hugger money

Well if a geologist says it's true, I guess you can't really argue with that.

I think he is bidding to get into the Rock Hall of Fame.

 

[Dr Oadi]

The earth s heating up? Well all we have to do to change that is have India and Pakistan get into a nuclear war.

http://news.yahoo.com/small-nuclear-war-could-trigger-catastrophic-cooling-181056235.html

 

[DiStefano]

The earth s heating up? Well all we have to do to change that is have India and Pakistan get into a nuclear war.

http://news.yahoo.com/small-nuclear-war-could-trigger-catastrophic-cooling-181056235.html

Since the likelihood of them getting into a nuclear war is fairly high, we need to heat the planet up, so the results of cooling won't be so bad.

 

[tommyboy]

http://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/03/clip_image00210.png.pagespeed.ce.kl3Yp636Kf.png

 

[Lutherman2112]

http://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/03/clip_image00210.png.pagespeed.ce.kl3Yp636Kf.png

Link to "article"

 

[jon_mx]

We heard for decades about the temperature increase accelerating. And even fear-monger talk about dangerous tripping points, where the warming would get out of control. Instead the temperature increase flat-lined and has been dead for 15 years going against all the certainty that the know-it-all experts said.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The Earth hasn't stopped getting hotter, even though you can slice off the last decade and make it appear that no warming has occurred with surface air temps. The oceans, where the vast majority of excess heat is stored, tell a different story.

 

[datonn]

The Earth hasn't stopped getting hotter, even though you can slice off the last decade and make it appear that no warming has occurred with surface air temps. The oceans, where the vast majority of excess heat is stored, tell a different story.

^ Don't even try and introduce facts/logic into the conversation. It snowed somewhere South of the Mason Dixon Line today...so that is "proof" that global warming/climate change is a crock!

Just wait until we have another really BIG volcanic eruption, and the Earth temporarily cools a bit. I'd bet my life savings that somehow, in some way, it would be Obama and Obamacare to blame for the wool being pulled over all our eyes. :sigh:

 

[zoonation]

Tell the soon to be extinct polar bears that the world isn't warming. Those poor guys...

But this has been a brutal winter! It isn't happening!

 

[jon_mx]

The Earth hasn't stopped getting hotter, even though you can slice off the last decade and make it appear that no warming has occurred with surface air temps. The oceans, where the vast majority of excess heat is stored, tell a different story.

^ Don't even try and introduce facts/logic into the conversation. It snowed somewhere South of the Mason Dixon Line today...so that is "proof" that global warming/climate change is a crock!

Just wait until we have another really BIG volcanic eruption, and the Earth temporarily cools a bit. I'd bet my life savings that somehow, in some way, it would be Obama and Obamacare to blame for the wool being pulled over all our eyes. :sigh:

You mean it never occurred to these modelers that maybe these big bodies of water called oceans could impact things? Or maybe the sun could impact things? You know, these modelers don't even know how clouds will impact climate. So if you don't really understand how things like the oceans, the sun, and clouds are going to impact climate change, how good are the models?

 

[zoonation]

Oof

 

[datonn]

The Earth hasn't stopped getting hotter, even though you can slice off the last decade and make it appear that no warming has occurred with surface air temps. The oceans, where the vast majority of excess heat is stored, tell a different story.

^ Don't even try and introduce facts/logic into the conversation. It snowed somewhere South of the Mason Dixon Line today...so that is "proof" that global warming/climate change is a crock!

Just wait until we have another really BIG volcanic eruption, and the Earth temporarily cools a bit. I'd bet my life savings that somehow, in some way, it would be Obama and Obamacare to blame for the wool being pulled over all our eyes. :sigh:

You mean it never occurred to these modelers that maybe these big bodies of water called oceans could impact things? Or maybe the sun could impact things? You know, these modelers don't even know how clouds will impact climate. So if you don't really understand how things like the oceans, the sun, and clouds are going to impact climate change, how good are the models?

Better than the Old Testament, New Testament, and Fox News?!

I blame Obama, personally...

 

[jon_mx]

The Earth hasn't stopped getting hotter, even though you can slice off the last decade and make it appear that no warming has occurred with surface air temps. The oceans, where the vast majority of excess heat is stored, tell a different story.

^ Don't even try and introduce facts/logic into the conversation. It snowed somewhere South of the Mason Dixon Line today...so that is "proof" that global warming/climate change is a crock!

Just wait until we have another really BIG volcanic eruption, and the Earth temporarily cools a bit. I'd bet my life savings that somehow, in some way, it would be Obama and Obamacare to blame for the wool being pulled over all our eyes. :sigh:

You mean it never occurred to these modelers that maybe these big bodies of water called oceans could impact things? Or maybe the sun could impact things? You know, these modelers don't even know how clouds will impact climate. So if you don't really understand how things like the oceans, the sun, and clouds are going to impact climate change, how good are the models?

Better than the Old Testament, New Testament, and Fox News?!

I blame Obama, personally...

Great rebuttal. But then again climate models are indefensible since they are like 0 for 1000.

 

[datonn]

The Earth hasn't stopped getting hotter, even though you can slice off the last decade and make it appear that no warming has occurred with surface air temps. The oceans, where the vast majority of excess heat is stored, tell a different story.

^ Don't even try and introduce facts/logic into the conversation. It snowed somewhere South of the Mason Dixon Line today...so that is "proof" that global warming/climate change is a crock!

Just wait until we have another really BIG volcanic eruption, and the Earth temporarily cools a bit. I'd bet my life savings that somehow, in some way, it would be Obama and Obamacare to blame for the wool being pulled over all our eyes. :sigh:

You mean it never occurred to these modelers that maybe these big bodies of water called oceans could impact things? Or maybe the sun could impact things? You know, these modelers don't even know how clouds will impact climate. So if you don't really understand how things like the oceans, the sun, and clouds are going to impact climate change, how good are the models?

Better than the Old Testament, New Testament, and Fox News?!

I blame Obama, personally...

Great rebuttal. But then again climate models are indefensible since they are like 0 for 1000.

And your argument of "scientists didn't bat 1.000, so since even parts of their theories and assertions have not been proven to be correct, throw all of 'em out with the bathwater" *IS* a great rebuttal?!

Listen, I don't know if you're a Christian Conservative, but unless you're fantastic schtick, you're obviously Conservative. Not riding the Right Pole, but close. But at least for the millions of your brethren that you need to fight the evils of Obama, let's try something: God.

Libraries of Congress worth of volumes written about "Him." Some people who believe that God has yet to send the Messiah down to Earth to save His chosen people. Some who think that Jesus wrapped that all up in a pretty little bow already, and will be returning soon to bring His followers into eternal bliss. Some who think (or until-recently thought) that God doesn't have time for "black people," or that handling of serpents is the path to closeness with God...and even salvation. Some people who think you should marry 5-6 women, or live using no more than ~19th Century tools and technology.

Find me one Christian, Jew, Muslim, pastor, priest, cleric, __________ who bats 1.000 on everything they've put forth as truth. I personally am an evangelical Christian, and I can tell you, most other Christians I know? Get at least a few things impossibly, embarrassingly WRONG related to God. So because those folks bat .675? .800? .900? .950? .990? God doesn't exist? It's all a lie? A couple folks like to handle rattlesnakes in Church, or think that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or think that wine/grape juice and bread/wafers are "magically transformed" into the literal blood and body of Christ, and ALL of Christianity is a lie?!

If you're still with me, THAT is what is so intellectually offensive when listening to people refute climate change. So-and-so used a colon instead of a semi-colon in their report...so the whole report isn't worth using as paper diapers for your kids. Some model said the Earth would warm 0.75 degrees, when it has only warmed 0.35 degrees, so the whole CONCEPT of global warming is garbage! Your assertion is that because people don't get it spot-on correct, it's all a lie. So what if 100% of Christians today get a couple things (a couple HUNDRED things) about God, Jesus, prayer, et al wrong? Is God (a Christian God) also a lie? And would you be willing to defend that assertion when it's not around people who vote "D" at the ballot box?

 

[TheAristocrat]

And then matter and anti-matter collide.

 

[jon_mx]

I have never made the argument that the whole concept of global warming is garbage. I have made the point that the models have more assumptions in them then facts and are completely unreliable to be forcing dubious political agendas down our throats which have nothing to do with providing meaningful solutions to our environmental issues.

I am not sure what snake-handlers or any of the other stuff you wrote has anything to do with this debate, but it was an interesting rant. I just find it humorous that there are scientist/politicians who run around proclaiming the science is settled when there is much more we don't know than we do know.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Thank god jon_mx is here to protect us from people with political agendas.

 

[jon_mx]

Thank god jon_mx is here to protect us from people with political agendas.

While all this talk of what my religion or politics might be is highly interesting, let's stick to a discussion concerning global warming.

 

[Rove!]

The Earth hasn't stopped getting hotter, even though you can slice off the last decade and make it appear that no warming has occurred with surface air temps. The oceans, where the vast majority of excess heat is stored, tell a different story.

There are a number of reasonable hypotheses for the "pause" in GW, over the past 15 or so years, including this "it's in the oceans" hypothesis, all they are at this point is conjecture...

 

[shader]

The Earth hasn't stopped getting hotter, even though you can slice off the last decade and make it appear that no warming has occurred with surface air temps. The oceans, where the vast majority of excess heat is stored, tell a different story.

^ Don't even try and introduce facts/logic into the conversation. It snowed somewhere South of the Mason Dixon Line today...so that is "proof" that global warming/climate change is a crock!

Just wait until we have another really BIG volcanic eruption, and the Earth temporarily cools a bit. I'd bet my life savings that somehow, in some way, it would be Obama and Obamacare to blame for the wool being pulled over all our eyes. :sigh:

You mean it never occurred to these modelers that maybe these big bodies of water called oceans could impact things? Or maybe the sun could impact things? You know, these modelers don't even know how clouds will impact climate. So if you don't really understand how things like the oceans, the sun, and clouds are going to impact climate change, how good are the models?

Better than the Old Testament, New Testament, and Fox News?!

I blame Obama, personally...

Great rebuttal. But then again climate models are indefensible since they are like 0 for 1000.

And your argument of "scientists didn't bat 1.000, so since even parts of their theories and assertions have not been proven to be correct, throw all of 'em out with the bathwater" *IS* a great rebuttal?!

Listen, I don't know if you're a Christian Conservative, but unless you're fantastic schtick, you're obviously Conservative. Not riding the Right Pole, but close. But at least for the millions of your brethren that you need to fight the evils of Obama, let's try something: God.

Libraries of Congress worth of volumes written about "Him." Some people who believe that God has yet to send the Messiah down to Earth to save His chosen people. Some who think that Jesus wrapped that all up in a pretty little bow already, and will be returning soon to bring His followers into eternal bliss. Some who think (or until-recently thought) that God doesn't have time for "black people," or that handling of serpents is the path to closeness with God...and even salvation. Some people who think you should marry 5-6 women, or live using no more than ~19th Century tools and technology.

Find me one Christian, Jew, Muslim, pastor, priest, cleric, __________ who bats 1.000 on everything they've put forth as truth. I personally am an evangelical Christian, and I can tell you, most other Christians I know? Get at least a few things impossibly, embarrassingly WRONG related to God. So because those folks bat .675? .800? .900? .950? .990? God doesn't exist? It's all a lie? A couple folks like to handle rattlesnakes in Church, or think that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or think that wine/grape juice and bread/wafers are "magically transformed" into the literal blood and body of Christ, and ALL of Christianity is a lie?!

If you're still with me, THAT is what is so intellectually offensive when listening to people refute climate change. So-and-so used a colon instead of a semi-colon in their report...so the whole report isn't worth using as paper diapers for your kids. Some model said the Earth would warm 0.75 degrees, when it has only warmed 0.35 degrees, so the whole CONCEPT of global warming is garbage! Your assertion is that because people don't get it spot-on correct, it's all a lie. So what if 100% of Christians today get a couple things (a couple HUNDRED things) about God, Jesus, prayer, et al wrong? Is God (a Christian God) also a lie? And would you be willing to defend that assertion when it's not around people who vote "D" at the ballot box?

 

[The_Man]

97% of the world's scientists have secretly plotted to contrive an environmental crisis, but luckily for us they are being exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

 

[jon_mx]

97% of the world's scientists have secretly plotted to contrive an environmental crisis, but luckily for us they are being exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

What exactly have 97% percent of scientist agreed with? That climate change is occurring and it is likely that man is playing some role? Ok great. But that does not mean that most scientist believe in the fear-mongering or the polices being pushed will accomplish anything. Most of what is being push as scientific consensus is not such. A bunch of crap (massive flooding, horrendous hurricanes, even mammoth earthquakes) is being bundle up and package as scientific fact when it is nothing but wildass speculation for the purpose of fear-mongering. And if you don't buy into that bull#### speculation, you are called some climate change denier who believes the earth is flat. The way this debate is framed by a bunch of idiots who wouldn't know science if it penetrated their ###### is mind boggling.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

97% of the world's scientists have secretly plotted to contrive an environmental crisis, but luckily for us they are being exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

It's all a conspiracy to funnel money to Al Gore, from my understanding.

 

[datonn]

97% of the world's scientists have secretly plotted to contrive an environmental crisis, but luckily for us they are being exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

What exactly have 97% percent of scientist agreed with? That climate change is occurring and it is likely that man is playing some role? Ok great. But that does not mean that most scientist believe in the fear-mongering or the polices being pushed will accomplish anything. Most of what is being push as scientific consensus is not such. A bunch of crap (massive flooding, horrendous hurricanes, even mammoth earthquakes) is being bundle up and package as scientific fact when it is nothing but wildass speculation for the purpose of fear-mongering. And if you don't buy into that bull#### speculation, you are called some climate change denier who believes the earth is flat. The way this debate is framed by a bunch of idiots who wouldn't know science if it penetrated their ###### is mind boggling.

The Party of "Death Panels" gets to make ZERO whine with their cheese as it relates to fear-mongering. Can we at least agree on that? Please? As the stench of ######## is already rank as it is.

That hypocrisy aside, exactly what "agendas" are being pushed by the Climate Change crowd? Energy independence (LONG TERM energy independence...not a few more decades of "drill baby, drill")? A cleaner environment? I still believe these are issues that anyone on the Left or the Right should be 120% in support of. Or is your contention that scientists and liberal businessmen are merely trying to secure billions in research monies and grants...shifting the wealth in our nation from one set of pockets into another?

 

[pantagrapher]

97% of the world's scientists have secretly plotted to contrive an environmental crisis, but luckily for us they are being exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

It's all a conspiracy to funnel money to Al Gore, from my understanding.

And to get that sweet sweet research money windfall so they can live it up in in Antarctica "testing" ice core samples.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What exactly have 97% percent of scientist agreed with? That climate change is occurring and it is likely that man is playing some role? Ok great. But that does not mean that most scientist believe in the fear-mongering or the polices being pushed will accomplish anything.

Yes. Technically it's not 97% of scientists; it's 97% of the roughly 4,000 papers in peer-reviewed journals that took a position one way or the other on the issue. Of those papers, 97% took the position that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it. (It is sometimes reported as 97% believe that humans are the main cause; but that's not correct. The 97% is "are contributing to.")

This is why it's kind of silly, IMO, to look at the last 10 years and say "Oh, look, no more global warming!" Or to say that all those climate scientists don't understand the sun or the ocean or whatever.

The climate scientists are not stupid. They know about the sun and the ocean. They know about the last 10 years. And yet 97% of the published research still says that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it.

Lay people who want to go against the grain probably shouldn't challenge the 97%. They don't know enough. (Experts are welcome to challenge it.) Lay people should instead point out that "humans are contributing to global warming" does not necessarily portend doom, and is not necessarily grounds for switching from fossil fuels to solar energy, etc. The public policy implications are really complicated, and there is no widespread consensus among experts about any specific policy recommendation, so far as I know. There's plenty of room for reasonable debate there.

Challenging the true scientific consensus, however -- that global warming is occurring and humans are contributing to it -- is removing yourself from any reasonable debate, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

So what should we do?

The most popular solution in the past has been for a carbon tax, but I fear that will only punish industry (and all of us) without having a significant effect on the problem. And even if it DID make things ultimately better, are we as a nation really willing to cause pain to ourselves in such a manner with no visible reward in sight? I doubt it.

There are too many people whose economic future is tied up with coal and oil, and they all vote.

 

[timschochet]

What exactly have 97% percent of scientist agreed with? That climate change is occurring and it is likely that man is playing some role? Ok great. But that does not mean that most scientist believe in the fear-mongering or the polices being pushed will accomplish anything.

Yes. Technically it's not 97% of scientists; it's 97% of the roughly 4,000 papers in peer-reviewed journals that took a position one way or the other on the issue. Of those papers, 97% took the position that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it. (It is sometimes reported as 97% believe that humans are the main cause; but that's not correct. The 97% is "are contributing to.")

This is why it's kind of silly, IMO, to look at the last 10 years and say "Oh, look, no more global warming!" Or to say that all those climate scientists don't understand the sun or the ocean or whatever.

The climate scientists are not stupid. They know about the sun and the ocean. They know about the last 10 years. And yet 97% of the published research still says that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it.

Lay people who want to go against the grain probably shouldn't challenge the 97%. They don't know enough. (Experts are welcome to challenge it.) Lay people should instead point out that "humans are contributing to global warming" does not necessarily portend doom, and is not necessarily grounds for switching from fossil fuels to solar energy, etc. The public policy implications are really complicated, and there is no widespread consensus among experts about any specific policy recommendation, so far as I know. There's plenty of room for reasonable debate there.

Challenging the true scientific consensus, however -- that global warming is occurring and humans are contributing to it -- is removing yourself from any reasonable debate, IMO.

What's really embarrassing is that the deniers include a United States Senator. If James Inhofe is willing to publicly label global warming a hoax, how can we expect conservatives on the Internet to be more responsible?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Hey Jon, what policies are being shoved down your throat? I'm pretty sure our government hasn't done Jack Schitt in this arena.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DiStefano]

What exactly have 97% percent of scientist agreed with? That climate change is occurring and it is likely that man is playing some role? Ok great. But that does not mean that most scientist believe in the fear-mongering or the polices being pushed will accomplish anything.

Yes. Technically it's not 97% of scientists; it's 97% of the roughly 4,000 papers in peer-reviewed journals that took a position one way or the other on the issue. Of those papers, 97% took the position that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it. (It is sometimes reported as 97% believe that humans are the main cause; but that's not correct. The 97% is "are contributing to.")

This is why it's kind of silly, IMO, to look at the last 10 years and say "Oh, look, no more global warming!" Or to say that all those climate scientists don't understand the sun or the ocean or whatever.

The climate scientists are not stupid. They know about the sun and the ocean. They know about the last 10 years. And yet 97% of the published research still says that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it.

Lay people who want to go against the grain probably shouldn't challenge the 97%. They don't know enough. (Experts are welcome to challenge it.) Lay people should instead point out that "humans are contributing to global warming" does not necessarily portend doom, and is not necessarily grounds for switching from fossil fuels to solar energy, etc. The public policy implications are really complicated, and there is no widespread consensus among experts about any specific policy recommendation, so far as I know. There's plenty of room for reasonable debate there.

Challenging the true scientific consensus, however -- that global warming is occurring and humans are contributing to it -- is removing yourself from any reasonable debate, IMO.

I agree with this. It is the doom and gloom policy recommendations which started the whole name-calling controversy. Remember the first IPCC report which estimated 50 million climate refugees by 2010, if we didn't enact draconian restrictions RIGHT THEN? And the reality is, the US has decreased its carbon footprint in the past 20 years without those taxes and draconian restrictions; but, unfortunately, China and India have more than made up for the difference. It's the prophecies that too many of the 97% scientists made which are the problem; not the science. But, in making those outlandish claims which have been proved wrong, again and again, they undermined the case for true science.

 

[timschochet]

What exactly have 97% percent of scientist agreed with? That climate change is occurring and it is likely that man is playing some role? Ok great. But that does not mean that most scientist believe in the fear-mongering or the polices being pushed will accomplish anything.

Yes. Technically it's not 97% of scientists; it's 97% of the roughly 4,000 papers in peer-reviewed journals that took a position one way or the other on the issue. Of those papers, 97% took the position that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it. (It is sometimes reported as 97% believe that humans are the main cause; but that's not correct. The 97% is "are contributing to.")

This is why it's kind of silly, IMO, to look at the last 10 years and say "Oh, look, no more global warming!" Or to say that all those climate scientists don't understand the sun or the ocean or whatever.

The climate scientists are not stupid. They know about the sun and the ocean. They know about the last 10 years. And yet 97% of the published research still says that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it.

Lay people who want to go against the grain probably shouldn't challenge the 97%. They don't know enough. (Experts are welcome to challenge it.) Lay people should instead point out that "humans are contributing to global warming" does not necessarily portend doom, and is not necessarily grounds for switching from fossil fuels to solar energy, etc. The public policy implications are really complicated, and there is no widespread consensus among experts about any specific policy recommendation, so far as I know. There's plenty of room for reasonable debate there.

Challenging the true scientific consensus, however -- that global warming is occurring and humans are contributing to it -- is removing yourself from any reasonable debate, IMO.

I agree with this. It is the doom and gloom policy recommendations which started the whole name-calling controversy. Remember the first IPCC report which estimated 50 million climate refugees by 2010, if we didn't enact draconian restrictions RIGHT THEN? And the reality is, the US has decreased its carbon footprint in the past 20 years without those taxes and draconian restrictions; but, unfortunately, China and India have more than made up for the difference. It's the prophecies that too many of the 97% scientists made which are the problem; not the science. But, in making those outlandish claims which have been proved wrong, again and again, they undermined the case for true science.

It's incredibly wrong to blame the scientists for the deniers. Unbelievable. Also, what evidence do you have to back up the claim that the US has decreased its carbon footprint?

 

[jon_mx]

Hey Jon, what policies are being shoved down your throat? I'm pretty sure our government hasn't done Jack Schitt in this arena.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Successfully shoved? Mostly policies which limits the mining/production of fossil fuels and policies which subsidizes others. This drives up energy costs and increases our dependency on foreign sources. Unsuccessfully? Policies like cap and trade which will give industries incentives to pack their bags and move jobs overseas.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Challenging the true scientific consensus, however -- that global warming is occurring and humans are contributing to it -- is removing yourself from any reasonable debate, IMO.

I agree with much of your post. However, I have to point out that "contributing to" is a very broad term. Most people would agree that man has an affect on the environment. Therefore, if one believes that the earth is getting warmer they would probably agree that man is "contributing." How much what can we do about it, at what cost are the questions worth discussing IMO.

 

[DiStefano]

What exactly have 97% percent of scientist agreed with? That climate change is occurring and it is likely that man is playing some role? Ok great. But that does not mean that most scientist believe in the fear-mongering or the polices being pushed will accomplish anything.

Yes. Technically it's not 97% of scientists; it's 97% of the roughly 4,000 papers in peer-reviewed journals that took a position one way or the other on the issue. Of those papers, 97% took the position that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it. (It is sometimes reported as 97% believe that humans are the main cause; but that's not correct. The 97% is "are contributing to.")

This is why it's kind of silly, IMO, to look at the last 10 years and say "Oh, look, no more global warming!" Or to say that all those climate scientists don't understand the sun or the ocean or whatever.

The climate scientists are not stupid. They know about the sun and the ocean. They know about the last 10 years. And yet 97% of the published research still says that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it.

Lay people who want to go against the grain probably shouldn't challenge the 97%. They don't know enough. (Experts are welcome to challenge it.) Lay people should instead point out that "humans are contributing to global warming" does not necessarily portend doom, and is not necessarily grounds for switching from fossil fuels to solar energy, etc. The public policy implications are really complicated, and there is no widespread consensus among experts about any specific policy recommendation, so far as I know. There's plenty of room for reasonable debate there.

Challenging the true scientific consensus, however -- that global warming is occurring and humans are contributing to it -- is removing yourself from any reasonable debate, IMO.

I agree with this. It is the doom and gloom policy recommendations which started the whole name-calling controversy. Remember the first IPCC report which estimated 50 million climate refugees by 2010, if we didn't enact draconian restrictions RIGHT THEN? And the reality is, the US has decreased its carbon footprint in the past 20 years without those taxes and draconian restrictions; but, unfortunately, China and India have more than made up for the difference. It's the prophecies that too many of the 97% scientists made which are the problem; not the science. But, in making those outlandish claims which have been proved wrong, again and again, they undermined the case for true science.

It's incredibly wrong to blame the scientists for the deniers. Unbelievable.Also, what evidence do you have to back up the claim that the US has decreased its carbon footprint?

I don't have a link to that. Well, this report says our carbon emissions are 7.7% lower in 2011 than they were in 2007.

http://ecowatch.com/2012/06/18/us-leading-the-world-in-co2-emission-decrease-from-reduced-coal-use/

And by the way, ALL the blame for the Middle East situation is due to Israel. Unbelievable that people don't see that.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Hey Jon, what policies are being shoved down your throat? I'm pretty sure our government hasn't done Jack Schitt in this arena.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

AB 32

 

[jon_mx]

Seems that the majority of geoscientists fit into Tim's denier category.

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-reviewedOrganization 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.

 

[fatness]

Geoscientists and engineers, eh?

 

[shader]

Seems that the majority of geoscientists fit into Tim's denier category.

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.

Dont 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-reviewedOrganization 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.

No those guys don't count Jon

 

[Lutherman2112]

James Taylor Misinterprets Study By 180 Degrees

- 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.

 

[Parrothead]

James Taylor Misinterprets Study By 180 Degrees

- 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.

next he'll be going to Carolina to survey scientists

 

[timschochet]

Jon I tried to open your link but I got nothing. Who wrote that article? And what exactly is meant by "geoscientists and engineers"?

 

[joffer]

I'll wait for the poll results from CPAC. That should be the clincher.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Jon I tried to open your link but I got nothing. Who wrote that article? And what exactly is meant by "geoscientists and engineers"?

James M. Taylor, J.D. wrote the article; he has a weekly column for Forbes online.

The link was buggy for me, too.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

If anyone who has ever taken a science class is skeptical of global warming, there isn't a scientific consensus. Case closed.

 

[timschochet]

Jon I tried to open your link but I got nothing. Who wrote that article? And what exactly is meant by "geoscientists and engineers"?

James M. Taylor, J.D. wrote the article.

Well that explains things. Of course a guy who has seen sunny days that he thought would never end is going to be skeptical of climate change.

 

[jonessed]

Seems that the majority of geoscientists fit into Tim's denier category.

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.

Dont 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-reviewedOrganization 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.

No those guys don't count Jon

They are clearly below the federal grant minimum required to have a vote.

 

[msommer]

James Taylor Misinterprets Study By 180 Degrees

- 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.

You sceptical guys need to read this

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Hey Jon, what policies are being shoved down your throat? I'm pretty sure our government hasn't done Jack Schitt in this arena.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Successfully shoved? Mostly policies which limits the mining/production of fossil fuels and policies which subsidizes others. This drives up energy costs and increases our dependency on foreign sources. Unsuccessfully? Policies like cap and trade which will give industries incentives to pack their bags and move jobs overseas.

Ok thanks.

 

[Doug B]

While speaking in broad strokes, is the stance described below really unreasonable?

Global Warming: has been happening over the past few generations, has also been very recently stable over the North American landmass

Climate Change: has been happening over the past few generations

GW/CC Humanity's Fault? To some degree, but pinning it down to a specific percentage is impossible.

GW/CC Crisis now?: Dunno ... define "crisis".

GW/CC Crisis in the near future (<20 yrs)?: Dunno ... define "crisis".

GW/CC Crisis in the farther-out future (20+ yrs)?: Nothing we can't engineer or adapt our way out of. There will be some humans losing out badly, but collectively the species will continue on with about the same collective standard of living.

Near Term Action? Balance carbon-neutrality/energy sustainabilty against economic impact. Reject all courses of action that lean too far toward one extreme or the other. Not all "green" initiatives kill business, not all business-friendly proposals kill the environment. Walk that middle path; resolve to do nothing rash.

 

[3C's]

The Alberta article again?