[_ Old Earth _] Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments?

[Mike S]

A recent study of professionals in one group - professional experts in petroleum and related industries - finds they are. The study is about framing of issues within specific groups of experts, and does not claim results are generalized over all professionals.


Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/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.â€

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.



I'm not a geoscientist, but as a layman I think I fit in this class of sceptics:

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 ecnomy.â€

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Forbes reports on an economist, who hand-picked about a thousand scientists to tell him that climate warming is wrong. If you read the hysterical language in the "report", you'll know it wasn't a scientific report.

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?

Another political puff-piece, masquerading as science.

On the other hand...

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."

American Geophysical Union
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."


American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."


The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."

International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities "

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

and here for international societies:
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Millions of climate and geophysical scientists acknowledge the fact. Makes Forbes' little scam look insignificant, no?

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

It was a report on a survey of a specific group of geoscientists and engineers...just as the report said. It's as valid for it's stated purpose as any IPCC report of "objective scientists." And, it wasn't narrowly defined as "is climate changing," which seems to be what your response has been.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

It was a report on a survey of a specific group of geoscientists and engineers...

Carefully chosen to get the answer the author wanted. That's why he surveyed so few of the hundreds of thousands or millions of scientists studying climate. As you have just seen the overwhelming majority of such scientists recognize the fact of climate change.

just as the report said. It's as valid for it's stated purpose as any IPCC report of "objective scientists."

And now you see why the author felt the need to make that claim. The bandwagon argument is a very bad one for deniers to use; deniers are rather scarce among scientists.

And, it wasn't narrowly defined as "is climate changing,"

(Barbarian checks)

Ah, yes... "alarmist global warming claims." Rather hysterical language for a supposed scientific report. Looks like they didn't define that very well. I think I know why.

Anyway, you've now seen that they are a very, very small number compared to the hundreds of thousands or millions of climate scientists who acknowledge the fact of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Ah, yes... "alarmist global warming claims." Rather hysterical language for a supposed scientific report.

Yea, sounds like the crap Al Gore and the IPCC come up with.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

It was a report on a survey of a specific group of geoscientists and engineers...

Carefully chosen to get the answer the author wanted.

What was the answer they wanted?

Seems pretty clear to me you didn't read the report.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Ah, yes... "alarmist global warming claims." Rather hysterical language for a supposed scientific report.

Yea, sounds like the crap Al Gore and the IPCC come up with.

Be careful, Pizzaguy, we're supposed to pretend those guys don't have an agenda.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

So it comes down to "O.K. the vast majority of scientists don't agree with our beliefs, but they have an agenda."

Somehow the side with the winning argument always gets accused of having an "agenda." For obvious reasons.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

So it comes down to "O.K. the vast majority of scientists don't agree with our beliefs, but they have an agenda."

Somehow the side with the winning argument always gets accused of having an "agenda." For obvious reasons.

Again, you clearly did not read the report.

The study was conducted for the Euopean Group for Organizational Studies in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html

It did not have as its "answer it wanted" either agreement or disagreement with AGW. It was looking for information on how members of specific professional groups framed their positions on AGW. This is taken directly from the report: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html

Abstract

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.



And I did not state I disgreed with AGW either. This is what I wrote in the OP.


"A recent study of professionals in one group - professional experts in petroleum and related industries - finds they are. The study is about framing of issues within specific groups of experts, and does not claim results are generalized over all professionals."

"I'm not a geoscientist, but as a layman I think I fit in this class of sceptics:"

"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.”



So you neither read what I included in the OP nor the report itself. Yet,

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Just pointing out the fallacy of defense by claiming the other side has an "agenda."

And, of course, the rather bizarre opening statement of the report:
With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global
warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?

That statement, BTW, was from Senator James Ihofe (R - Exxon) who has repeatedly introduced false and defamatory material on climate change into the Congressional Record. If they didn't want to be laughed at and considered cranks, they probably shouldn't have used that as an opening.

Let's take a look and see how they do:

Each claim to know ‘what is at issue’ (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 3) with climate change is embedded within a specific frame. Frames work as ‘schemata of interpretation’ that enable individuals ‘to locate, perceive, identify and label’ occurrences within their life space and the world at large’(Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986, p. 464). According to Snow and Benford (1988) frames have three core tasks. Diagnostic framing refers to the identification of an aspect of the world considered to be in need of amelioration – the definition of the problem and the attribution of causality. Prognostic framing attempts to propose ameliorative action and possible solutions, while humbling, undermining or neutralizing existing counter-framings. While diagnostic and prognostic framing aim at mobilizing consensus, the third framing task – motivational framing –includes the ‘call to arms’ by elaborating vocabularies of motive that provide ‘adherents with compelling accounts for engaging in collective action’

You want to tell me what you think all that means? This is academic literary gobbledegook at its worst.

Did you read this? Tell me what you think it means. Drivel like this is why Sokol pulled off his hoax on frauds like these.

The Sokal affair, also known as the Sokal hoax,[1] was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. In subsequent publications, Sokal claimed that the submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".[2]

The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the Social Text Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[3][4] On its date of publication (May 1996), Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense...structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

He submitted a manuscript that used the same sort of ostentatious citing, vague use of neologisms, and utter nonsense that this report uses.

And because postmodernists (who think truth is whatever you make it to be) can't tell the difference (and because it was submitted by a real scientist with real academic achievements) they published it.

Does that tell you something about the guys who write like that?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

My take on the article, and from the many foot notes on it, is the article is talking about a specific group of scientists from the Alberta area. The informaiotn is found was that roughly around 25% think there is no human contribution. 25% think humans are the main cause, 45% think its a mix of human and natural cause, and the rest varies.

So roughly 70% think humans have some kind of effect on Global warming. Alright. Only 25% think its a huge problem. Though, if this survey was done over all Geoscientists ( engineers should probably not be polled since their research is based on the finding, but part of the findings). The results might be a tad different.

The article is also from February so it also could be outdated.

My thought on the whole global warming things is that we are having an impact, but i don't buy Al Gore's nonsense. What I think we need to do is study the changes and put a lot of investments into Genetically engineered crops that can survive the changing climate. Think ahead not behind.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

My take on the article, and from the many foot notes on it, is the article is talking about a specific group of scientists from the Alberta area. The informaiotn is found was that roughly around 25% think there is no human contribution. 25% think humans are the main cause, 45% think its a mix of human and natural cause, and the rest varies.

That's exactly right

So roughly 70% think humans have some kind of effect on Global warming. Alright. Only 25% think its a huge problem. Though, if this survey was done over all Geoscientists ( engineers should probably not be polled since their research is based on the finding, but part of the findings). The results might be a tad different.

The article is also from February so it also could be outdated.

My thought on the whole global warming things is that we are having an impact, but i don't buy Al Gore's nonsense. What I think we need to do is study the changes and put a lot of investments into Genetically engineered crops that can survive the changing climate. Think ahead not behind.

The study does not purport to make a decision about whether AGW is scientifically correct or not. It's a survey of how members of a specific professional group - geoscientists and engineers in the petroleum industry in Alberta Canada - frame discussion of the issue. Scientists in that industry are as capable of understanding and discussing the issue as professionals in any other group, including professionals in academia. And, the issue is not simply whether AGW theory is correct or not, but how to respond to climate change in general.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

My take on the article, and from the many foot notes on it, is the article is talking about a specific group of scientists from the Alberta area. The informaiotn is found was that roughly around 25% think there is no human contribution. 25% think humans are the main cause, 45% think its a mix of human and natural cause, and the rest varies.

That's exactly right

So roughly 70% think humans have some kind of effect on Global warming. Alright. Only 25% think its a huge problem. Though, if this survey was done over all Geoscientists ( engineers should probably not be polled since their research is based on the finding, but part of the findings). The results might be a tad different.

The article is also from February so it also could be outdated.

My thought on the whole global warming things is that we are having an impact, but i don't buy Al Gore's nonsense. What I think we need to do is study the changes and put a lot of investments into Genetically engineered crops that can survive the changing climate. Think ahead not behind.

The study does not purport to make a decision about whether AGW is scientifically correct or not. It's a survey of how members of a specific professional group - geoscientists and engineers in the petroleum industry in Alberta Canada - frame discussion of the issue. Scientists in that industry are as capable of understanding and discussing the issue as professionals in any other group, including professionals in academia. And, the issue is not simply whether AGW theory is correct or not, but how to respond to climate change in general.

Don't worry Mark, I understand what you are saying. I'd rather discuss issues and findings wither grounded people also.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

It's not unusual for people working in the petroleum industry to accept the company dicta about climate change. My point is that the article makes claims about a consensus, based on a very biased and very small sample. The global claims presented in Forbes:

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

Were completely false. Even worse, the "report" was presented in postmodern garble which means nothing at all. If the article had said, "scientists working for oil companies in Alberta tend to be more inclined to deny climate change than other scientists", that would have been an honest presentation. But they let political correctness override their journalistic ethics.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

It's not unusual for people working in the petroleum industry to accept the company dicta about climate change. My point is that the article makes claims about a consensus, based on a very biased and very small sample. The global claims presented in Forbes:

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

Were completely false. Even worse, the "report" was presented in postmodern garble which means nothing at all. If the article had said, "scientists working for oil companies in Alberta tend to be more inclined to deny climate change than other scientists", that would have been an honest presentation. But they let political correctness override their journalistic ethics.

You still don't get it, Barbarian. The report and articles were not about denying climate change, and I'm not about denying climate change either. A majority of the professionals surveyed were sceptical about the alarmist conclusions of what needs to be done in response to climate change, and I too am sceptical. If the IPCC would simply report on the science and end it there, most of us would have no problem with it. It the hysterical recommendations for governments to respond with massive intrusive taking-control-of everything-in-the-world measures that anger us enough to say "Put it where the sun doesn't shine, buddy!"

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

You still don't get it, Barbarian. The report and articles were not about denying climate change,

I just pointed out that they were about misrepresenting what scientists think about climate change. Note the way Forbes peddled it:

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

As you know, it is an absolute falsehood. The vast majority of scientists recognize that anthropogenic climate change is a fact.

A secondary concern, is with the rather sloppy way the report was thrown together with all the politically-correct gobbledegook postmodernist language.

If you start out with a lie, there isn't much hope that things will get better after that.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

You still don't get it, Barbarian. The report and articles were not about denying climate change,

I just pointed out that they were about misrepresenting what scientists think about climate change. Note the way Forbes peddled it:

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

As you know, it is an absolute falsehood. The vast majority of scientists recognize that anthropogenic climate change is a fact.

It doesn't matter.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Barbarian observes:
I just pointed out that they were about misrepresenting what scientists think about climate change. Note the way Forbes peddled it:

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

As you know, it is an absolute falsehood. The vast majority of scientists recognize that anthropogenic climate change is a fact.

It doesn't matter.

To me, the truth matters.

 

[Mike S]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

Barbarian observes:
I just pointed out that they were about misrepresenting what scientists think about climate change. Note the way Forbes peddled it:

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

Noted: Barbarian would have written a different headline.

As you know, it is an absolute falsehood. The vast majority of scientists recognize that anthropogenic climate change is a fact.

As you know (or should know) not within the scope of the survey.

It doesn't matter.

To me, the truth matters.

That doesn't make you special, the truth matters to all of us. But to you, spin seems to matter more.

The "truth" you're missing here, is that there is a lot more to the disussion of climate change than just the cause. There is no real disussion of the possibe benefits of climate change - regardless of cause - or the cost/benefit analysis of different adaptations to change, something sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg have long advocated. That doesn't fit with the IPCC narrative of absolute catastrophe of change, and the need for massive, totalitarian, government involvement. That's the scepticism found in the study that you seem unwilling to acknowlege.

Your attitude of intolerance to different opinion reminds me of the Soviet Union's policy of "socialist realism." Originally referring to art and music, it came to involve every aspect of life. Every human thought and behavior HAD to support the official government policy, anything that didn't, anything sceptical, was of no value and had to be destroyed. Global warming "consensus" falls into that realm of thinking.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments

That doesn't make you special, the truth matters to all of us. But to you, spin seems to matter more.

As you see, I was just pointing out that the Forbes spin on the report was a blatant misrepresentation:

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

As you know, this is completely false.

Noted: Barbarian would have written a different headline.

I wouldn't have lied about it, no.

The "truth" you're missing here, is that there is a lot more to the disussion of climate change than just the cause.

No. The fact that there is also the question of what we can do about climate change does not alter the fact that Forbes blatantly misrepresented the truth.

There is no real disussion of the possibe benefits of climate change - regardless of cause - or the cost/benefit analysis of different adaptations to change, something sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg have long advocated.

So you agree with Lomborg that the answer is a carbon tax?

In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn/print

I'm not certain that will work, although it might. That's an economic issue, not a scientific one. But, as I pointed out before, that's not an excuse for dishonesty.

That doesn't fit with the IPCC narrative of absolute catastrophe of change, and the need for massive, totalitarian, government involvement.

I missed the part where they called for "massive totalitarian government involvement." Could you show us that?

That's the scepticism found in the study that you seem unwilling to acknowlege.

Oil companies often have denied the evidence. But as you see, even oil company scientists are inclined to accept the evidence. Those without such an agenda overwhelmingly recognize anthropogenic climate change. Even some oil companies like Exxon have changed their tune in that regard.

Your attitude of intolerance to different opinion

Dishonesty isn't a "different opinion." It's just dishonesty. Forbes presented a very limited survey of oil company employees as something very different. Shame on them.

reminds me of the Soviet Union's policy of "socialist realism."

It is true the Soviets did the same kind of coverup regarding their abuse of environment. Forbes and the Soviets both considered the PR aspect to be more important than the reality. Some of the worst ecological damage in the world is found in the old Soviet bloc.

Every human thought and behavior HAD to support the official government policy, anything that didn't, anything sceptical, was of no value and had to be destroyed.

Kinda like the oil companies.

Global warming "consensus" falls into that realm of thinking.

The way Forbes tried to redefine it, it does.