From Forbes writer James Taylor:
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 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 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.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
…
The paper:
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
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.
Full open paper here: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
PDF: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html
============================================================
Organization Studies (OS) publishes peer-reviewed, top quality theoretical and empirical research with the aim of promoting the understanding of organizations, organizing and the organized in and between societies. http://oss.sagepub.com/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I know I have a bias, but I have always maintained that geology is the proving ground of ALL other sciences. Experiments in the lab and computer models are great tools, but a real answer comes only if we can determine that something has happened in nature. And the geologic record is very clear that we do not live in a unique time or under special conditions which must be preserved at all cost.
But then again, who really cares about consensus? Show me that your theory makes correct predictions and I will listen, no matter how many other “scientists” believe you.
78.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
You can’t put physical heat into water through its surface. The heat seems to be blocked by surface tension, don’t ask me how, but a hot day does not mean a warmer ocean. Thats why there is heat missing all over the place. The only energy that goes into the ocean is sun’s radiation. Quiet sun= cold planet. AGW is a shot duck.
I saw a tweet to this first in April. The Forbes article is from February. The paper itself from November 2012. Why is it only appearing here now?
Amazing when you consider how quickly Dana Cook’s 97% BS paper became part of the gospel.
Of course, Obama and the CNBC, CNN, ABC, BBC, and the ususal “sky is falling” hysterical alarmist media outlets will completely ignore this and rely on the repeatedly debunked, falsified and incoherant Cook paper instead. the 97% meme must not be denied by anyone in the corporatist media. Facts be damned, Climate Scientists (who make a very good living from alarmism) agree that 97% agree about carbon dioxide being a “greenhouse” gas. (and little else) and those amateurs who call themselves engineers are not real scientists. I mean what happens when an engineer does not make certain of his facts? Bridges fall down, buildings collapse, people die. When a Climate scientist is wrong, their funding could be in peril, unless they can invent a reason why them being wrong proves them to be right. (warming makes the weather drier, except when it makes it wetter, except when it makes it colder…. no warmer… no colder and wetter….no no no snowier, no dryer… etc. )
Climate “Scientists”… What a waste of carbon they are.
Bah, stupid engineers. What do they know. Aside from how to make things, how to make things work reliably, how to predict things, how to confidently predict things, how to know when things can’t confidently be predicted, and how to guarantee reliable and consistent results, they’re practically ignorant.
/sarc
Reblogged this on makeaneffort and commented:
Someone sat CNN should get on the air and brief the President!
This has been “out there” for almost a year and this is the first I’ve heard of this.
One reason for this result is that geologists and meteorologists have better skills and experience dealing with perspective on time scales, cycles, and appreciation for nature’s complexity while engineers have superior analytical training. Alarmists have, well, alarm skills and dogma enforcement training and crowd manipulation skills.
Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW
Oil workers don’t believe their work is going to harm civilization. Quelle surprise.
Next study will show that only a tiny minority of coal executives believe that coal is dirty.
The survey is of members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta. No potential for bias or conflict of interest there!
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
So much for the AGU position.
numerobis says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:48 amg
So, you suggest that engineers and geologists are no less biased than what you call “coal executives?” Where does that bias come from? Is it in the training? Or maybe you think that engineers and geologists just inherit the bias? Is there anything that could cause you to reject your belief in this bias? Do you believe that you have a well rounded view of engineers or geologists? Why?
Engineers and Scientists for Validated Models
That study affirms The Right Climate Stuff – NASA scientists and engineers who successfully went to the moon and back.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Science Assessment Report
The Right Climate Stuff Research Team April, 2013
See also The Oregon Global Warming Petition Project
where 31,487 American scientists do not foresee catastrophic global warming.
As an engineer/science, I endorse their findings – science is founded on validated models, not lemming like systemic bias where ALL the climate models running hotter than the temperature evidence.
I have been aware of this article for a while now, and received comments from warming extremists about the paper. Since one of the authors is Lianne M. Lefsrud, University of Alberta, Canada, and since Alberta is oil sands territory, she poisons the study with her geographical location. Therefore, this article has no credibility with the warmists. However, it may have been this very paper that inspired Mr. Cooke to get his 97% consensus study, and he obviously markets himself better than Ms Lianne M. Lefsrud.
numerobis… 97% (to the nearest 70%) of Climate alarmists believe the output from models (which is the only place they can get all the alarm the grant funding bodies require), over real data. Your point?
Mine is that Engineers rely on truth and facts or people die. Climate alarmists rely on failed models, or else they lose some money and tomorrows chip paper has one less hysterical headline.
Of course meteorologists, engineers and geoscientists don’t believe human-induced greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. Their funding does not depend on that belief.
On the other hand, the climate science community is funded to examine the effects of manmade CO2 on climate. If there were no anthropogenic effects, there would be no funding for their research. That’s how the funding agencies create the consensus!
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It will make another wonderful example for the next edition of Arts of Truth. Nothing here is what it seems.
Forbes writer James Taylor is in fact a Heartland Institute staffer. He features in one twisted truth example in the book already. Now he gets a second.
Sage (a for profit house) publishes OS and many other inferior journals. They are notorious for low quality publish or perish stuff. You can visit their sites to get a personal sense of this.
Both authors are business school professors of organization. As painful as it was to read through all their high fallutin dreck, their purpose was to research “institutional defense mechanisms”. To this end, the study specifically and only sampled geologists and engineers in the petroleum industry in Alberta, Canada (home of the tar sands that would feed the Keystone pipeline).
The amazing result was that 36% of them still thought CAGW was a problem! It shows the opposite of what Taylor intended to convey. A third of “evil” oil experts ‘admitted’ CAGW is real and a problem. (I personally think they are wrong, and merely displayed ignorance of technical fields outside their oil expertise, perhaps suggesting how powerfully dangerous the IPCC is).
You might want to reconsider how your post is positioned, Anthony. Taylor’s take is as bad as summer lakes at the North Pole or heat records at Greenland airports. It will likely get caught out by the other side, and misfire as badly as Heartlands Chicago Kazinsky billboard.
Regards
If you have the stomach for it, interview with mann http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
As a geologist and geology professor for nearly 40 years I’ve never thought AGW was anything but total BS. Every geoscientist that I know who is good at his profession feels the same. We all view AGW as a scam to fool the gullible (virtually all politicians) to keep the money rolling in for pointless grants, computer models, and publications
Geoscientists and engineers recognize that climatology has become contaminated by politics and near-religious fervor. That is what I suspect is behind this poll result.
Apparently the engineer who heads the IPCC is in the minority.