Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,207
- 2,512
Re: Are A Majority Of Geoscientists And Engineers Sceptical Of Alarmist AGW Arguments
The facts haven't changed. You probably get tired of being reminded of the data, but it is what it is. As you know, the Earth's surface temperature has been rising for the last few hundred years. Even during the last sunspot minimum, when temps should have dropped markedly, they went up, instead.
Let's take a look at that, and why you didn't reply to my question about it:
Your link:
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
But you knew:
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …†or “scientists don’t believe …†Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.
In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto†are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists†mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.
All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.
But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!
Researchers' communication to Forbes
My question to you was, since you knew that the Forbes article was false and misleading, why did you present it here?
You seem annoyed that I did focus on it. Here we have Forbes making an egregiously false claim, which you presented here, and then later you tell us you knew it was false. What's that about?
So why then, did you show us this:
I'm focusing on the OP, and trying to get you to explain why you presented it here, when you knew it wasn't true. Or are you telling us that you only now found the evidence, and posted it, believing that Forbes was telling the truth?
As you know, I responded to that claim by showing you that the vast majority of climate scientists accept the data showing that the surface temperature is rising, and has been for centuries.
I've asked you about the OP several times now, and you don't seem to want to talk about it.
You drifted off into the "climategate" hoax, and the "scientists thought that we were going into an ice age" hoax, and so on.
This is, as you surely see, a political fluff-up, not a scientific issue. Forbes found a study they liked, misrepresented what it said, and clearly have taken a hit for it. None of that really has anything to do with Christian faith or science. You're in the wrong forum. This is more appropriate for politics or maybe ethics.
The facts haven't changed. You probably get tired of being reminded of the data, but it is what it is. As you know, the Earth's surface temperature has been rising for the last few hundred years. Even during the last sunspot minimum, when temps should have dropped markedly, they went up, instead.
Let's take a look at that, and why you didn't reply to my question about it:
Your link:
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
But you knew:
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …†or “scientists don’t believe …†Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.
In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto†are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists†mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.
All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.
But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!
Researchers' communication to Forbes
My question to you was, since you knew that the Forbes article was false and misleading, why did you present it here?
You seem annoyed that I did focus on it. Here we have Forbes making an egregiously false claim, which you presented here, and then later you tell us you knew it was false. What's that about?
So why then, did you show us this:
, if you knew it was false?
I'm focusing on the OP, and trying to get you to explain why you presented it here, when you knew it wasn't true. Or are you telling us that you only now found the evidence, and posted it, believing that Forbes was telling the truth?
As you know, I responded to that claim by showing you that the vast majority of climate scientists accept the data showing that the surface temperature is rising, and has been for centuries.
I've asked you about the OP several times now, and you don't seem to want to talk about it.
You drifted off into the "climategate" hoax, and the "scientists thought that we were going into an ice age" hoax, and so on.
This is, as you surely see, a political fluff-up, not a scientific issue. Forbes found a study they liked, misrepresented what it said, and clearly have taken a hit for it. None of that really has anything to do with Christian faith or science. You're in the wrong forum. This is more appropriate for politics or maybe ethics.
