Image Credit – Wood For Trees and Werner Brozek
From the Investor’s Business Daily:
The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close.
Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don’t.
But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm.
This is the finding of the peer-reviewed paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” and this group is categorized as the “Comply with Kyoto” cohort.
Members of this group, not unexpectedly, “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.”
Academics Lianne M. Lefsrud of the University of Alberta and Renate E. Meyer of Vienna University of Economics and Business, and the Copenhagen Business School, came upon that number through a survey of 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists. Read More At IBD
The study, Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change, by Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer can be found here.
A couple interesting quotes within:
“Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, nongovernmental, and corporate organizations.”
…
“The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue.”
The Investors Business Daily Article goes on to note that:
If the alarmists are getting only limited cooperation from man, they are getting even less from nature itself. Arctic sea ice, which sent the green shirts into a lather when it hit a record low in the summer of 2012, has “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”
“This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.
At the same time, the Antarctic “is now approaching 450 days of uninterrupted above normal ice area,” says the skeptical website Watts Up With That, which, also using University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research data, notes that “the last time the Antarctic sea ice was below normal” was Nov. 22, 2011.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
justthefactswuwt say:
Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth
That is the whole point, the alarmist have very little to work with so the regurgitate the same old worn out models and weather gone mild with occasional weather gone wild as proof of their doom and gloom predictions. All predicated on lies and misinformation!
But, but, but……… 97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that man is the primary cause.
Now it turns out to be only 36%. Is this an inverse relationship between CO2 concentration and the number of scientists who believe in concensus?
The “consensus” from the 1970’s. This is actually quite a good video, which shows how different perceptions were, only a few decades ago. Narrated by Spock. Fascinating.
Nothing unusual has happened since then. In fact, the global temperature has changed by less than during most of the Holocene. Temperatures have been essentially flat for the past 16 years. But the public’s perceptions have changed, due to the relentless propaganda raining down on them 24/7/365.
There’s an entire cadre of critics of this paper already…because the polled professionals belong to APEGGA, otherwise known as the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists of Alberta. “Shills for Big Oil”. Yawn. I don’t belong to APEGGA, never have. I work overseas, so paying a dues to an organization that doesn’t even give you a cool hat is pointless. Regardless, A great many people there are NOT oil-related. But no matter. The shill-brand has gotten out of the bag, and therefore the findings are instantly invalid. (/sarc for safety’s sake). But, I’ll betcha the numbers are correct. People who think for a living tend to despise the Klimate Kooks Klan.
Every honest climate scientist,in fact,all honest scientists(no,I don’t count the mental manipulators as scientists) are complicent in this scam by their silence.
I agree with Mike Bromley. IMO confining this kind of survey to members of organizations like the APPEGA is just asking for criticism. I am also somewhat disappointed that I have never been asked to complete such a survey despite being a professional engineer.
“This is only the third winter in history,”
=====
I hate this……..define history first
Well, if the APEGGA is comprised of shills for big oil, then it only stands to reason the IPCC is comprised of shills for big government. Even more so. Many in the APEGGA are not paid by oil companies, while nearly everyone associated with the IPCC is paid by government.
So the questions to all those warmists out there…who pays you or gives you money, and why are you ‘shilling’ for them? Why have you sold out by taking grants or salaries? If the only valid scientific information comes from scientists who accept no compensation for their scientific work, who among you can throw the first stone?
Hypocrites!
Well said, Stealey at 9:40 am. It reminds me of a story in my newspaper about a man who was wrongly diagnosed Alzheimer by his neurologist. While he got the wrong medicines, his doctor let raining down on him relentless propaganda, making him to believe the diagnosis more and more but at the same time noticing that nothing went wrong with his memory. After a few years of maltreatment he found out the truth. So people do more than listening to propaganda.
As a former APEGGA member, I’ll state that I have no “big oil” dependencies (other than wanting to have affordable energy) and that I’m as skeptical as anyone I know. I suspect that most of those polled are less dependent upon the petroleum industry than the alarmists are on alarmism.
Leonard Nimoy, does not like being called Spock.
Anyway – I am amazed at the number of people (who still believe in AGW) who also are completely unaware that the “natural” short term warming trend stopped around 1997/1998 with the El Nino. They just don’t have the time or desire to find out the facts, yet they still have the time to vote and defend their choice (based on what?). This to me, is in fact the definition of a low information voter.
Of course we should refrain from using terms like “Low Information Voter”, as the left has labelled people like me “Deniar”.
While I am as big a skeptic as there is and believe that mankind’s contribution is something less than 25% (possibly FAR less), I cringe whenever our “side” brings up the “fastest rebound in the Arctic” meme. It seems a bit disingenuous because of course a higher melt off will bring a more dramatic freeze up. It is sort of like getting the dreaded “most improved” award when you are young. “You still suck, but you have come a long way Johnny!” Ok…that’s all…
The Investors Business Daily Article goes on to note that: … skeptical website Watts Up With That…
—————————————
Recognition – YAY!
[Reply: But they didn’t make it a hot link. ☹ — mod.]
The AGW crowd have been trotting out the same cliches for years eg “It’s worse than we thought” (It has never been better than they thought!!). “The science is settled” to give just two.
The problem is not the scientists it is the governments, they have got an awful lot of revenue to lose if AGW is publicly disproved; taxes on air travel, petrol, diesel, car taxes other green taxes etc etc. AGW is not going to be publicly disproven, we have the BBC the Met Office and the EU and over the other side of the Atlantic, Obama, in Australia they have Gillard! Propaganda which would be worthy of Goebels, is the mainstay of AGW, mantra rather than scientific reasoning, ardour rather than logic, ridicule and insults rather than debate.The science never made any sense, it confuses weather with climate, it is based on computer models only, any evidence that is contrary to AGW is very quietly publicised.
In my view the only way that AGW can be publicly disproved is if legal action is taken against one or more of the organisations that have provided bad advice to governments. I don’t know if that is even possible.
There is always a rider that should be put on any look at warming trends. A small amount of historical warming is nothing to be concerned about. It is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) that justifies government policies. This is projected as something for the future. Demonstration that warming is happening, along with signposts of the impending adverse consequences are necessary, but far from sufficient, conditions to substantiate these claims. The many failures in short-term predictions reduces the weighting (credibility) that is given to the CAGW projections. This, in turn, affects the cost-benefit justifications for policy.
“Klimate Kooks Klan”
Poetic alliteration Mike Bromley luv it. Strike one for Canuckistan!
Btw, is it cold in Cowburg and do bears s*7t in the woods?
Mr. Africa says:
February 17, 2013 at 10:50 am
——————————————-
You have a good point about the “fastest rebound in the Arctic” meme. However, doesn’t the fact that the Arctic is rebounding so quickly make the alarmism of the Arctic ice loss that much less alarming?
I’m still amused how they call it “climate change”. One look at this planet’s history shows that the climate has never been stable and has always changed. Sure, from a human point of view climate is long term stable, but what are 2,000 years, for example, when dealing with Earth itself? Nothing. And even in those last 2,000 years we’ve had several climate changes, far bigger than what is happening today and there’s no way that the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods (which were global as one look into Asian history proves without a doubt) were triggered or “made worse” by humans.
“with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”
Perfectly normal and in fact expected . After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback. Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area ). That’s why in the final analysis area and extent are not the best metrics for understanding the total picture. That’s why volume in the end is a better metric. Although we do amuse ourselves watching area and extent and area and extent are more important during the melt season ( when albedo feedback can operate cause the sun is up) Put another way, the more record losses in area you see in the melt season, the more records in rapid gains you will see when there is no sun in the arctic.
Basically, a record that doesnt matter as much in terms of albedo.
CAVEAT EMPTOR
The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.
Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection. The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint. Walk into a meeting of alcoholics anonymous and you can find 100% of the people have been drinkers.
Secondly, of the 1077 surveyed, the majority believe warming is partly caused by man.
So, if you read this post and immediately think, I knew it, you are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. Read behind the headlines to discover the truth and don’t expect to find anything other than fraudulent disinformation from the likes of Watt Up With That.
“But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm.”
This is actually a radical view.
Steven Mosher,
What is the problem with an ice-free Arctic? I can only see benefits, such as sharply reduced shipping costs, less fuel used, and shorter transit times.
Give me a scare story, I’m going thru withdrawal.☺
Of course one can point out that the CRU received big money from major oil companies. And then there’s Al Jazeera-Gore. Apparently you’re only a shill if you think the sky isn’t falling.
As a Life Member of APEGGA and a member of the first Civil Engieering class to specialize in Water and Pollution at the University of British Columbia, I am not at all surprised by this paper. We learned about “Climate Change” being the norm way back in elementary school. I just wonder whatever happened to our education system? Politicization? Merde.
Most has to do with the sun and that .02% of sunspot energy. .02% is a big deal with the size of the sun. It takes time for earth to cool down coming out of historical high sunspot cycles. I do agree there is Urban Global Warming but it is located near citys only. Cut down trees that release on av. 4 tons of water water vapor per tree and replace it with pavement and you will get higher temp readings and dryer air. Most Temp reading sites were sourounded by farms and trees in the past 30 to 100 years.
BC (Black Carbon)that is dumped into the areas that jets fly 25,000 to 40,000 feet is main cause for BC deposits in the N hem ice caps/snow resulting in much faster summer melting. Jets that fly are like GIANT blower heaters heating so much air it is amazing. Look at this chart when Jut fuel consumpion rose and so dit global temps. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel&graph=consumption
I see a pice of another puzzle. Also look at global temps when the economy came to a stand still in 2008, Global temps took a short but sharp drop off.