New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

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

  1. Lianne M. Lefsrud

    1. University of Alberta, Canada
  2. Renate E. Meyer

    1. Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria and Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

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/

About these ads

124 thoughts on “New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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!

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

    The motto of the Mission Flight Controllers:
    “Achievement through Excellence”

    And the motto of the Mission Evaluation Room engineers who supported Flight Operations:
    “In God we trust, all others bring data”

    These were . . .words that defined how we did our work. This is what made us proud to be called “Astronauts,” and “Rocket Scientists.”

    Anthropogenic Global Warming Science Assessment Report
    The Right Climate Stuff Research Team April, 2013

    From such diverse interpretation of the data by climate scientists, one must conclude, with a high assessed confidence, that the science of Carbon-based AGWis not settled.

    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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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!

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. numerobis, Professors are highly biased. If climate change is a scary problem, the billions in grant money will keep moving within their grasp. Besides, professors live in the world of words, where strong rhetoric and consensus is truth.

  19. numerobis says:
    August 13, 2013 at 8:48 am

    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.

    Mike SG says:
    August 13, 2013 at 8:54 am

    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!

    I notice that – just yesterday! – the United States GOVERNMENT – at both the presidential and department level positions (DOE, DOD, DOI, DOE, EPA, NOAA, NASA, NSA, etc, etc, etc, etc) officially and specifically forbade ANY discussion of alternatives or review of the evidence or presentation of papers about global warming or funding of ANY study of ANY kind that did not both explicitly and implicitly support HER catastrophic global warming prejudices and theology.

    Now, would that little bit of prejudged bias and narrow-minded thinking perhaps maybe just perhaps in a little way influence a little bit any maybe “academic” so-called “scientists” who NEED THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY FOR THEIR LIVES?

  20. The paper is pretty interesting. It would be nice to see the same methodology used in the study of some technological experts who are not oil company employees. Of course the groupings that they arrive at are not as secure as blood types, but they are well-described and documented, I think a finding that 36% of oil company employees endorse AGW is significant. Would it be higher in academic geology departments? Would it be lower among Chinese, Russian, Brazilian or Indonesian oil company technical experts?

  21. numerobis demonstrates the post-modern belief that ideas have no value in and of themselves, they only gain value from the social, political, or class-based affiliation of the person espousing the idea.

    That way every idea from people he doesn’t like can be comfortably ignored.

  22. It’s interesting that no mention is made in this post, nor in the Forbes article, of the fact that the survey was done in Alberta, the oil sands capital of the world. So would a survey of, say, solar and wind turbine engineers that came to the opposite conclusion be regarded as valid and accepted here on WUWT? I think not, I’m sure there would be cries of survey bias and “cherry picking” respondents.

  23. Allencic: 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

    That puts you in either the 24% group or the 10% group, depending on how you answer the other questions.

  24. The alarmist reaction is completely predictable. They ignore the data and jump in with ad hominems. The funny thing is the Doran-Zimmerman study was biased by limiting the study to published climate scientists whose jobs depend on keeping the scare alive. However, we have not seen a single alarmist bring up this issue. If anything proves this is all about propaganda it is the distinctly different and illogical reaction by alarmists.

  25. Trouble is, whilst I “strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk”, I see considerable impact on my personal life. Mostly in the vaulting increases in my energy bills caused by all the brain-dead politicians who believe in this rubbish and act accordingly.

  26. This survey still doesn’t do a good job separating CO2 induced climate change from other human-related causes. So if I believe deforestation affects climate, then I might answer that humans are significantly changing climate. And my answer would then be misconstrued as saying that CO2 is significantly affecting climate. This conflation by the surveyors is intentional, I’m certain.

  27. 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists…

    Engineers and geoscientists are not known for being hysterical bedwetters

  28. Only 12 men walked on the Moon. Those 12 men are the only people qualified to speak with authority about going to the surface of the Moon. What do a bunch of engineers know about space travel and moon walking anyway?

  29. Rud Istvan: The amazing result was that 36% of them still thought CAGW was a problem!

    !, indeed. I don’t agree with you that their language was dreck, but I am glad that at least one other person besides myself actually read the paper. The bias of the authors was clearly stated at the outset: a study of organizational defensiveness. And still they found 36% of the respondents support AGW. That’s larger than the “nature is overwhelming” group.

  30. Q: What do the following have in common?

    2+2 = 4
    F = MA
    Planck’s constant
    Ohm’s Law
    Germ transmission of disease
    E = MC squared

    A: They all care not one whit how many people believe them.

  31. Not only has the US Government forbade alternate discussion of their Pet Meme for taxation and control, they obviously havent’ told their favorite news outlets to broadcast the fact to the masses.

    That would explain why some commenters here are clueless and still agree with CAGW propaganda; they really should think for a change and get out of the government “information” trough.

    I just wonder how much longer WUWT will be allowed to voice an independent opinion on the subject. SInce the “powers-that-be” now consider us to be “subjects” instead of “citizens”, it won’t be long.

    Cupcakes, anyone?

  32. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” is also appropriate for IPCC railroad engineers who have special skills and experience at working the system.

  33. FerdinandAkin says:
    August 13, 2013 at 9:32 am

    Only 12 men walked on the Moon. Those 12 men are the only people qualified to speak with authority about going to the surface of the Moon. What do a bunch of engineers know about space travel and moon walking anyway?

    Ummmm…engineers put them there?

    (Yes, I realize your post was sarcasm, but I had to give kudos to the real (anonymous) heroes.)

  34. Astrophysicists, strangely unconsulted about the issue, generally agree that AGW is entirely unproven and likely is nonexistent at this time, for the attributed cause, CO2.

  35. They appear to have surveyed a bunch of people employed in the oil sands industry. You were expecting something different?

  36. Numerobis, a failed Egyptian architect from the 1965 French comic Asterix and Cleopatra… Do read it, is fun and you may understand the distorted logic.

  37. Rud Istvan says:
    August 13, 2013 at 9:11 am

    “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.”

    Amazing! You, too, buy into the egregious fallacy that reasoning by engineers and geologists is determined by their biases. In addition, you suggest that their economic bias over-rides all their other biases.

    Take your reasoning to a first rate engineering or geology faculty at a first rate university that trains petroleum engineers. According to your reasoning, all the first rate training in geology and engineering is less important than the economic biases of the professors. Preposterous, Sir, preposterous!

    It is possible, in principle, that your condemnation of the study is correct. However, you have not provided one shred of legitimate evidence to that effect.

  38. Rattus Norvegicus says:

    August 13, 2013 at 9:59 am

    They appear to have surveyed a bunch of people employed in the oil sands industry. You were expecting something different?

    Well, Dana Nuticelli works for Big Oil and you don’t see him minimizing AGW like that.

    :p

  39. numerobis says: “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.”

    These people are in a better position than you are to render such an opinion. Just because you don’t belong to these groups does not establish that you are unbiased, merely ignorant.

  40. @RACook –
    Yes, the totalitarians cannot tolerate dissent, and they will simply claim that contrary proof doesn’t exist even when it slaps them upside the head. They will just say there is no there there. This is obviously a reaction to the embarrassment suffered by Gauleiter Boxer, and proceeding from that, by der Fuehrer himself, in the Senate hearing two weeks ago.

    The irony is that, in their reliance on the precautionary principle, they fail to take the precautions necessary to ensure that their position is right.

    As for me – and I hope for everyone else here at WUWT – I will not be cowed or deterred by any ultimatums or threats coming from these people. Obersturmfuehrer Gina McCarthy, who obviously is the one who spewed this diarrhea, can go to hell in a handbasket. The gauntlet is flung down.

  41. Numerobis

    What an itiotic statement. As a geologist I have dedicated 40+ years of my life being a professional geologist and an educator at university level. You can’t dedicate your life to something and NOT care deeply about it. But your innane statement seems to imply that a bunch of neo-socialist, ex-hippie eco-terrorists care more about the Earth than geologists and engineers. (We are related disciplines by the way: geologists provide the understanding of Earth systems and engineers figure out how we can best have a modern society within the confines of those systems).

  42. @Theo Goodwin: “So, you suggest that engineers and geologists are no less biased than what you call “coal executives?””

    The paper goes into some detail with this. Oil executives (many of whom are scientists and engineers by training, so they replied to this survey) are overwhelmingly in the frames that deny that global warming is a problem. Public-sector respondents (university profs? regulators?) are largely in the frames that say it is a problem humans should deal with. The average is in between; the survey population is (according to the paper) dominated by lower-level geologists in the oil and gas industry.

    I would definitely expect the respondents to have a bias in favour of assuming their hard work is making the world a better place to live, not a worse one; given that they work in oil and gas, that means I expect they would have a bias against thinking that their work is helping bring about global warming. Note that almost all the respondents agree that the planet is getting warmer.

    From the abstract I expected the survey would be about people in the petroleum industry working to mitigate the effect of climate change on their company — trying to offset one bias with another. But then they just survey the general population of geologists in Alberta.

  43. 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.

    Only rarely do I read a comment that actually shocks me. This statement is, sadly, not only categorically untrue, it is the opposite of true. The first law of thermodynamics, correctly framed, states quite clearly that the only way to add or remove energy into any bounded system is through its surface. This is knows as the Law of Conservation of Energy (as well as the first law of thermodynamics). If the statement above were true, the energy content of every body of water would be a constant.

    Heat is not blocked by surface tension, whether or not you are asked how. Indeed, not one thing in this paragraph is correct.

    The thermodynamics of water aren’t all that difficult. Heating water from above is not terribly efficient because — as is the case with most fluids — warmer water is usually less dense than colder water (water is indeed exceptional in that it is “usually” instead of “all the time” — water achieves its greatest density at 4 degrees centigrade which is why almost the entire volume of the ocean is at 4 degrees centigrade, plus or minus a degree. This, in turn, is enormously fortunate because it is why the ocean freezes from the top down instead of the bottom up. If it froze from the bottom up, the Earth would be an unredeemable ball of ice all where at best surface lakes formed on top of the ice near the equator.

    Water above the thermocline is thus typically stratified, gradually warming and becoming less dense as one rises to the surface. Heat from both sunlight and the atmosphere most definitely are transferred to the surface layer BUT as it does several things happen. One is that water has a very high latent heat of evaporation, and the heat, instead of JUST warming the surface, causes additional evaporation of the surface water and much less cooling than one might expect. The evaporative water cycle is chemically quite complicated — how likely water is to cool via surface evaporation depends on the relative humidity right over the surface as well as things like the speed of air movement across the surface and the relative temperature of the water and the air. The surface layer of the ocean is constantly warming from sunlight and contact with warmer air (when and where the air is warmer!), from falling rain (when it is warmer), from condensation at the surface, and sometimes from heat transport up from underneath (when the ocean thermally inverts so that the surface is cooler and more dense than water underneath it). It is constantly cooling from outgoing thermal radiation, from contact with cooler air (when and where the air above is cooler!), from falling rain or snow (when it is cooler!), from evaporation at the surface, and from the transport of cooler waters underneath up to the surface.

    Note that every process that warms the surface can also cool it, depending on the DETAILS of the reservoir being coupled to it by physical convective transport, by latent heat, by radiation, by direct contact. Generally warmer things warm cooler things, cooler things cool warmer things and the ocean is not an exception although warmer and cooler things can also affect the RATES at which things happen and hence affect temperature indirectly in cases where many things are contributing to heating and cooling towards some state of approximate balance.

    So no, that’s not why there is heat “missing” all over the place — there really is no missing heat. What there is is an inconsistency in a theoretical explanation, a discrepancy between what it naively predicted and what was observed. We cannot directly measure the total energy received by the Earth in a day or a year; at best we infer it on the basis of a few observations and a whole lot of interpolation and extrapolation. We cannot directly measure the total energy lost by the Earth in a day or a year; at best we infer it on the basis of a few observations and a whole lot of interpolation and extrapolation. We lack the data to be able to make any sort of assertion such as “there is missing heat” or to be able to positively identify where the missing heat has gone.

    It has been asserted that the ocean itself has warmed a tiny — truly tiny — bit and, because it is so vast, that this warming out at the absolute limits of our ability to measure it at all is heat that was supposed to turn up in the atmosphere as increased atmospheric and surface temperatures (according to GCMs) and hence is in some sense “missing” from their predictions. But the reality is that the GCMs suck, everybody knows it, and that every year that is passing they suck worse because they unambiguously predict aggressive warming where the Earth has been essentially neutral in temperature change for almost the entire period they have tried to predict. The question then is WHY they suck.

    Perhaps they suck because the ocean is buffering a real energy imbalance, reducing the rate of global warming to a tiny fraction of what has been predicted (and likely to continue to reduce it in this way into the indefinite future, as there is a whole lot of ocean and almost all of it is so cold that it would kill you in a matter of minutes if you were immersed in it thermally unprotected but able to breathe). In that case, fixing the GCMs to account for this might improve the quality of their predictions. OTOH, it could be that they suck because they are getting some part of the physics wrong and the Earth is not, in fact, in a state of energy imbalance and has not been in a state of imbalance for the last decade and a half while temperatures have been more or less stagnant. In that case one would have to fix the physics in the models in much more difficult ways. It might be both.

    The problem with the ocean buffering answer is that BECAUSE the ocean is thermally stratified with the warmest water on top, thermal transport from the top to the bottom is very, very slow. We don’t try to boil water by heating it on the top because we can get the surface to boil and still have quite cold water on the bottom. If we heat from the bottom, the warmer water continually displaces the colder water on the top and all of the water mixes as it heats so that it all reaches boiling at the same time. Indeed, we achieve what is called a “rolling boil” because the heat added the bottom is actively transported to the top, released there (as latent heat of evaporation) cooling the water at the surface, which then sinks down to the bottom to be heated again in turbulent rolls.

    One cannot achieve a rolling boil by heating the water at the top! Ever!

    There is always SOME transport of heat and mixing within the ocean, caused by differentially moving water currents and turbulence at the boundaries between them, but this process, too, is dominant only near the surface and not so important below the thermocline. At the moment it is not clear that the observed mixing is capable of transporting as much heat as is supposedly “missing”, making this a somewhat unproven explanation. I don’t know (quite literally) how seriously to take the claims that the ocean above the thermocline is warming, given the total number of sampling buoys in ARGO as of now, their probable error and the density of their sampling, and the terribly short time that they’ve been sampling even at this probably inadequate density. The (claimed) observed warming is very, very small — hundredths of a degree Centigrade, IIRC — which is out there were I have to be very, very dubious that we are capable of resolving it from probable error and natural noise.

    I don’t think I could measure the mean temperature of my own back yard, or the state of North Carolina, to a hundredth of a degree, let alone the entire ocean in depth. I don’t think that we know the “mean SST” to within a hundredth of a degree. I don’t think that we know the global surface temperature or the lower troposphere temperature (both of which are much better measured, for a much longer time) than the bulk ocean. So I have to doubt that we actually have reliable knowledge that there is additional heat built up in the ocean over the last decade, or century. That doesn’t meant that I doubt that there is — the Earth itself has been warming since the LIA, and the ocean is part of the Earth, it stands to reason that it has been warming — only that we are able to either measure that warming on a decadal time scale or attribute it to any particular anthropogenic cause.

    Finally, you assert that quiet sun = cold planet, and that AGW is “dead”. You could be correct, of course, on either or both counts, but you could be incorrect as well. So why do you state this as a (presumably) proven fact? You acknowledge (and accidentally reveal) your own ignorance about thermodynamics in general and the dynamics of oceanic heat transport in particular, and then make statements that you cannot possibly prove or make more than a very tenuous argument for. It is possible that a quiet sun favors a cooler planet and an active one a warmer one, but the differences in mean insolation are really, really small between the two — they are dwarfed by the natural annual variation in insolation caused by the Earth’s elliptical orbit, they are probably dwarfed by the variations in the Earth’s albedo due to pure noise in atmospheric heat transport and cloud formation and volcanic activity. If one accepts the current line broadening, DALR varying version of CO_2 linked greenhouse gas theory (which is actually not exactly proven and not even all physicists agree with the theory itself) then it is dwarfed by the probable change in the GHE due to increased CO_2.

    So far no completely convincing explanation for HOW a quiet sun might lead to a cooler planet has been forthcoming — variation of albedo due to modulation of cloud nucleating cosmic radiation is probably the best of I’ve heard so far, and has at least SOME empirical basis, but it is still far from proven and may not even be provable given our current ability to measure and observe what goes on in the atmosphere. It could also be true some other way — variation in stratospheric ozone that through several stages of intermediation and redirection modulates cloud formation or stratospheric water vapor content. Or it might be something else entirely. It might even be that no such explanation is necessary — the Earth is quite capable of cooling or warming just from minor variations in the patterns of atmospheric and oceanic heat transport. Divert the Gulf Stream so it hits Europe 500 miles further south than it does now, and it could trigger a period of explosive NH glacier growth right into the teeth of increased CO_2 even if the current GHE theory is dead accurate. Since melting freshwater sea ice and glacial ice is less dense than the salty cold water it displaces, it could even be the case that a few more years of north polar warming could TRIGGER a displacement of the oceanic “global conveyor belt” that moves heat around via a complex system of variation of salinity, temperature, and density interacting with the shapes of the continents and the slowly changing contour of the ocean floor, driven in part by coriolis forces that arise because the Earth is a spinning ball and not an inertial refrerence frame.

    In other words, global warming could nonlinearly trigger a glacial era. This isn’t a completely crazy hypothesis. It is one explanation offered for the Younger Dryas — a period of abrupt cooling that interrupted the start of the Holocene interglacial for around a thousand years of return to glaciation. It is supposed that an enormous freshwater lake of glacial melt accumulated in North America, that was blocked by an glacial ice dam from the ocean. At some point the dam melted, “suddenly” dumped a small ocean’s worth of freshwater into the northern polar regions, which caused an immediate and rather long lived rearrangement of oceanic currents that favored a return to glaciation, at least until the continuing progression of the Earth’s orbit overwhelmed it.

    I do not claim that this explanation is correct — we don’t really know what caused the Younger Dryas, and this is only one of several competing explanations (all of which could be incorrect — it could be something we haven’t thought of yet or do not understand yet well enough TO think of).

    Ultimately, our ignorance of climate science is profound. We persist in trying to explain the variation of the climate “anomaly” — deviation from some presumed stable mean behavior that is a sort of all-things-being-equal background on which local and global climate causes proceed. That is, we linearize the hell out of our descriptions of the climate system about the present and hope that linear extrapolation works in a highly nonlinear system with a historical record of nonlinear and unexplained natural variation on a scale that dwarfs the observed anomaly.

    Good luck with that.

    In the meantime, it is just as incorrect to assert that AGW is definitely wrong as it is to assert that it is definitely right. It is unproven either way. There is some evidence and some reasonable arguments that suggest that humans have impacted the climate in a variety of ways (such as introducing goatherding into North Africa to creat vast deserts as they ate the plants that bound the moisture). There is some evidence that human “caused” variations are unresolvable noise compared to natural variations — that the Sahara might have formed anyway without the help of goats as moved to warmer drier times in the Holocene. It is difficult to prove either hypothesis at this time, and indeed it may NEVER be provable either way as in a chaotic system both are quite possibly true — and false — at the same time.

    A sensible public course of action might be to take such small and inexpensive steps as prudence dictates that might help us cope with climate changes of ALL sorts, human caused or not, while maintaining an open mind either way on this and many other issues. Hurricane Sandy was very destructive whether or not it was “our fault”, and the measures that should be taken against future occurrences of similar storms are wise measures even if humans have nothing whatsoever to do with them (as is, IMO, probably the case). Burning of carbon to get energy is fine for now in the specific sense that it the lives saved now with certainty by bringing civilization to the (energy) impoverished outweigh the expectation value of lives lost in some indeterminate future from AGW, but it isn’t a long term sustainable base for human civilization and we would be foolish to squander it all now while we can afford to search systematically for more sustainable and ultimately cheaper alternatives so either way we should hedge our bets and work on alternatives even while not demonizing carbon for personal gain or for alternative unstated reasons such as saving this or that or attacking oil companies etc.

    rgb

    P.S. — LOVE the preview button. About time!

  44. It loses impact here because of the population surveyed is largely in the oil business, but wasn’t the paper about “defensiveness” of those who derive their living from the “issue”. This is certainly what was wrong with the more celebrated 97% case, which BTW, also narrowed itself down to 36% of the papers examined…hmm. In any case, if you took the survey of geologists and engineers not closely connected to enviromental things career-wise, you would get a majority of these practical doers of things to state the CAGW meme is pure BS. The caveate is to remove the unbelievable legions of “environmental geologists” being churned out these days! There will be a lot of joblessness among this group as the hysteria abates. Indeed, I don’t know where all these geology-lite folks are being hired, even before the CAGW force was in retreat. They will be among a terribly long list of asterisked PhDs and MScs when it is all over (BScs can at least go back and pick up a few courses.

  45. @wws: “numerobis demonstrates the post-modern belief that ideas have no value in and of themselves, they only gain value from the social, political, or class-based affiliation of the person espousing the idea.”

    This story is about a survey of the beliefs of a certain class of people. I pointed out that the result is not surprising. The rest is your imagination.

    Nature doesn’t care what any of us think.

  46. Climate modelers and atmospheric physicists working in the climate industry may be very competent and intelligent.
    But, in their climate and ENSO models they ignore the most important factors which are changes in solar activity, cycle of the oceans and tidal forcing.
    They are either ignorant, very naïve or they are good at gaming the system.

  47. Numerobis,

    I expect they would have a bias against thinking that their work is helping bring about global warming.

    So I can dismiss consensus of alarmist climate scientists the same way, right? Those guys would have a bias against thinking that their work is meaningless and that AGW is insignificant?

  48. “Discursive construction”.

    That’s gotta be real science. Normal people don’t talk like that.

  49. RMB says: “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…”

    The fact that you don’t want to be asked indicates that you don’t know any mechanism that would cause surface tension to “block” heat. You have no proof, no data, no charts, no equations, no algorithm, no peer-reviewed papers, no theses, no monographs, no science. You have only an assertion, and it’s nonsense. Liquid metals have surface tensions an order of magnitude higher than water and manage to transfer heat quite well. There’s a lot of information on the Internerd on surface tension theory. Why don’t you do some actual study? Even Wankerpedia has a section on surface tension.

  50. jorgekafkazar says:
    August 13, 2013 at 10:29 am
    ——
    Go back and read again. RGB was arguing what you’re arguing because somebody else upthread threw that theory out there. He was quoting somebody else, and then disputing it.

    Hazard of a long comment; people often get confused about what you’re actually arguing.

  51. As an engineer I don’t find the claim surprising that a large number of engineers don’t buy into the CAGW theory.
    There are probably a lot of reasons for this but a lot of it has to do with the engineering training to look at data and facts to make decisions or to design something that is safe and works. Also a good engineer is one who approaches issues and even data with a large degree of skepticism. Failing to do so or using corrupted data can result in designing a piece of equipment that may fail or cause a fatality.
    As a skeptic myself on virtually all things, I became suspicious early on about the claims that manmade CO2 emissions were causing global warming especially with a lot of experience in the energy business. I spent a lot of time on the Internet investigating the claims, especially that corn based ethanol would be the salvation of the earth. Ultimately I found WUWT which became the ultimate source to enable me to weed through the nonsense.

    In my engineering community I found both skeptics and believers; the initial basis for believers was based on acceptance of IPCC propaganda on the basis that it must be a credible organization and it was supported by a lot of University scientists.
    Fortunately I found that virtually all believers were quickly converted to skeptics when they were shown the actual data via WUWT, which I disseminate to a fairly large engineering audience. Even Skeptics were happy to finally find a resource that confirmed their suspicions with actual data. Of course the release of the climategate emails from the corrupt global warming community was the turning point for those who still had some residual trust in IPCC, academia and other government sources.

    Interesting I found that some of my NAS associates, who originally trusted academia, forwarded my WUWT material to others who susequently contacted me for additional data such as the monthly UAH Satellite data. Similarly I found out that some of the WUWT material was being distributed in Engineering society committee meetings.
    In my experience, the largest group of Engineering holdouts are those who have become dependent on the government funded alternative, renewable fuels (biofuels) industry. They are tough to reason with since they have often become zealots on the evils of fossil fuels. I have to admit that I have enjoyed the fruits of consulting on biofuels and carbon capture but never forfeit my skeptic integrity during that engineering endeavor.
    Anthony, keep up the good work, your impact is widespread, most engineers will evaluate the information and data and make the right conclusion.

  52. This is not new, and was reported on WUWT back on February 17th. See…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/13/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-only-36-of-geoscientists-and-engineers-believe-in-agw/#more-91548

    My response back in February was…

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/science-or-science-fiction-professionals-discursive-construction-of-climate-change/

    This paper is greatly misrepresented. The thrust of Lefsrud’s paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” is that the the engineers in the oil industry are not objective enough to see the truth about global warming.

    The important part of the paper, from the author’s perspective, is about “Framing experts’ identities,” where they try to figure out why these experts think the way they do. That is the type of approach that social scientists take – they want to see what makes you tick. That is why the social sciences probably should not be called sciences at all. It is easier for them to make up stories about why people think the way they do based on their “identities” and “relative positioning” rather than examining the scientific merits of their arguments. If you really think that this paper supports your (and my) view on expert opinion concerning global warming, I suggest you re-read the ”discussion and conclusion.” Here are some highlights…

    “Nor is this merely a binary debate of whether climate change is ‘science or science fiction’. There are more nuanced intermediary frames that are constructed by these professionals. Indeed, by differing in their normalization and rationalization of nature, they vary in their identification with and defensiveness against others, and in their mobilization of action.”

    That is, the “deniers” (the word Lefsrud uses, not me) are “rationalizing” and “defensive.”

    What can be done about this defensiveness they ask? Here is their answer…

    “Our findings give greater granularity in understanding which professionals are more likely to resist…an interest-based discourse coalition may be formed that has the potential to overcome the defensiveness.”

    If you want to get an idea what Lefsrud is all about take a look at here CV. Here is one of my favorite entries…

    Lefsrud, L.M. Graves, H. & Phillips, N. Dirty Oil, Snake Oil: The Categorical Illegitimacy of Alberta’s Oil Sands. Targeting Administrative Science Quarterly, Fall 2012.

    I don’t think Lefsrud is an objective source or has much respect for us.

    By the way, I like the new comment preview feature;-)

    REPLY: Yep, I go a tip this AM, and didn’t remember that I’d previously covered it. My mistake. – Anthony

  53. rgbatduke says:
    August 13, 2013 at 10:18 am

    It’s so much easier just to change the observational data which falsify the models rather than try to find out what is wrong with the naive GCMs. Since satellites put a lid on “climate scientists” ability to “adjust” recent data warmer, they’re busily making older observations colder.

  54. I’m a CAGW skeptic. But I think that this article is no good. I posted this link and received a response from a thoughtful guy, whose claims I verified. I reproduce those points below.

    1. This is a survey of engineers and scientists working *in the oil industry* in Alberta Canada. Not only is it a fairly unrepresentative sample, but a deliberately biased one. The authors of the survey were interested in how working for natural resource extraction companies affected one’s views. Unsurprisingly the most hostile group towards global warming was made up of older white men in upper management positions of these oil companies.

    2. Not only were many scientists not even remotely climate scientists, but a whopping 84% of respondents were engineers, not scientists at all. This included all sorts of specialties – from pipe maintenance engineers to mechanical engineers – with no special knowledge whatsoever of climate issues. It also brings to mind a list of “thousands” of scientists promoted years ago that was dominated by engineers with bachelor’s degrees. These are equivocation fallacies – one credible group is aggregated with a less credible and much larger group to create the impression that the first group

    3. The “36%” number refers to the plurality of respondents who were the “most concerned” and who were fully supportive of the Kyoto Protocol. On top of them were numerous other categories of respondents who were not skeptical that global warming is happening, but expressed some other variance or reservation about it.

  55. numerobis says:
    August 13, 2013 at 10:18 am

    And you have no explanation for the facts except that engineers and geologists are biased? You are a good Alarmist; for you, there is no explanation other than CO2.

    The engineers and geologists in question spend most of their time filling out legal documents. In effect, you are accusing them of fraud. Think a bit before you make such charges.

  56. Consensus is irrelevant. All that matters is who is right. [Look up quasicrystals and helicobacter pylori].

  57. So if I’m a doctor, I shouldn’t be asked about Obamacare because I’m perhaps negatively impacted by its implementation?

    Or if I’m a farmer, my expertise about raising a family shouldn’t be considered because my day job is to provide food for them and a host of others?

    Or should I happen to be an engineer–one that values accurate data and engineering principles above all else–my opinion shouldn’t be considered because my primary job is likely not that of dealing with climate data?

    Are you nay-sayers asserting the only people that have the right to tell us about climate are those that build models and predict future climatic trends while very few if any of those “experts” have doctoral degrees in “climate science”?

    I’ve not seen such an illogical outpouring of opinion in a long, long time.

  58. Are you still regurgitating this biased study,

    from the report:

    To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others.

    . . .maybe you should change the title of the blog to

    New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers employed at the Alberta tar sands believe in AGW

  59. Unfortunately, if you can manage to wade through the gobbledygook of the paper itself, you quickly see that it has a very definite anti-skeptic/climate realist agenda. It is a trojan horse, and is meant to tar skeptics with the “evil” oil industry brush. We have seen this sort of thing before. It is part and parcel of the Climatists’ arsenal against truth and science.

  60. The article states:

    “By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming…”

    I personally believe this is biased to the low side. truth be told, most all scientists would admit that there is a clear lack of evidence implicating human activity. In fact, there really is no empirical evidence, there is only conjecture.

    The mounting lack of evidence for AGW since Kyoto has gotten even more sparse, since more than 31,000 scientists and engineers co-signed a statement that CO2 is “harmless” and “beneficial”. That is ten times the number of alarmist scientists who state that human activity is the main cause of global warming. In reality, the “consensus” is a small clique of self-serving individuals who benefit from the scare.

    And jai mitchell continues his unbroken streak as a “carbon” scaremonger. He writes:

    New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers employed at the Alberta tar sands believe in AGW

    That is exactly what the article states. I don’t think jai mitchell has as much of a problem with the article as he does with reality. He could hardly be more disconnected from the real world.

  61. It’s so much easier just to change the observational data which falsify the models rather than try to find out what is wrong with the naive GCMs. Since satellites put a lid on “climate scientists” ability to “adjust” recent data warmer, they’re busily making older observations colder.

    Agreed, but sadly (for them) the LTT measurements now have put a cap on that, and Anthony’s paper on weather station site placement actually is having an effect. We might see, for the first time, adjustments made to the the primary global surface temperature measures that fail to make the present warmer or the past cooler, because there is simply no more room for the former and to continue to push down the latter might give the game away as well. Besides, the interval in question well within the LTT record(s) and can’t be monkeyed too much with either.

    I personally am waiting to see if the incredibly illegitimate statistical games that were played within the Summary for Policy Makers in AR4 — averaging nominally independent models and using the result as if it could possibly lead to some sort of confidence interval on a future prediction, among many other sins — are continued in AR5. Perhaps what is needed to block that kick is an “open letter” of some sort or other warning that this time this sort of crap will not be tolerated but will be trumpeted as prima facie evidence of statistical incompetence and bias on the part of the summary writers.

    The average of 1000 incorrect models instead of 10 does not make the mean any more likely to be correct — it simply ensures that the standard deviation is utterly meaningless and misleading instead of merely meaningless and stupid. Applying hypothesis testing to the models themselves, one at a time, would lead to wholesale rejection of the models, though, and then what would they use as the basis for claims of impending doom? Models with far, far less climate sensitivity? Models based on the null hypothesis of no discernible effect of CO_2 at all? I don’t think so.

    Physics has a history of theories that were widely believed, where a “consensus” of “experts” held them to be “beyond question”, that were in the end proven utterly false, so false that we cannot today understand how anyone could ever have thought them true. In the end, the only thing that “proves” a theory (supports it as possible truth) is evidence, just as the only thing that “disproves” a theory is evidence. And evidence continues to accumulate. At some point there is enough of it, with still more coming in, that one simply cannot “fix” it with thumbs on scales, “peer reviewed adjustments”, data transformations, cherrypicking, confirmation bias, and all the other sins of sloppy science to agree with one’s theory. On that day, scientists who were scrupulously honest about the limitations of their knowledge and belief have nothing to fear. Those that, as Sherlock Holmes would say, insensibly twist the facts to fit the theory should, quite rightly, fear the pitchforks and torches of an outraged populace that were swindled out of their wealth, their happiness, and their peace of mind all to save the world from a theoretical disaster.

    rgb

  62. [snip - I'm not interested in your opinions about my motives Jai, there was a link to the full paper. Tough noogies if you don't like what was posted here in excerpt - Anthony]

  63. jai mitchell says:

    “The overwhelming majority” of information posted on WUWT “is disingenuous propaganda”.

    jai mitchell complains that because the author did not post every last bit of information [even though he gave mitchell the links to find it], that the article “therefore misconstrues the purpose and findings of the study.”

    Nonsense, as usual from jai mitchell. The information is all there. mitchell’s very serious problem is his complete lack of empirical evidence to support his runaway globaloney beliefs. His “carbon” scare is pseudo-scientific nonsense.

    When there is zero evidence that something exists, Occam’s Razor says that the ‘something’ is probably extremely unlikely.

  64. I would love to see this study and its methods expanded, to include not just Canadian scientists and other experts, but American ones, and even a worldwide study at some point. The study is excellent in its approach to actually trying to understand expert opinion on climate in a nuanced way, but the limits of its scope also limit its significance to the wider debate.

  65. @rgbatduke.

    I wouldn’t get too hot under the collar about surface tension and heat transfer if I were you. You are of course quite right but my reading of the green fraternity (and sorority) is that they know no science, can’t do maths and are completely impervious to any sort of reason. I suspect that most of the people who come up with these stellar concepts are liberal arts/sociology types.

  66. RMB says:
    August 13, 2013 at 8:39 am

    You wrote:
    You can’t put physical heat into water through its surface. 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.

    I say that sounds like a testable hypothesis!

  67. A licensed mechanical engineer (retired) who has been researching this issue for 6 years, and in the process discovered what actually caused global warming, has four papers on the web, that you may find of interest. They provide some eye-opening insight on the cause of change to average global temperature and why it has stopped warming. The papers are straight-forward calculations (not just theory) using readily available data up to May, 2013.

    The first one is ‘Global warming made simple’ at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com It shows, with simple thermal radiation calculations, how a tiny change in the amount of low-altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny cloud change. (The other half of the temperature change is from net average natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)

    The second paper is ‘Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight’ at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that, using a single external forcing, calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.

    Change to the level of atmospheric CO2 had no significant effect on average global temperature.

    The time-integral of sunspot numbers since 1610 which is shown at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_23.html corroborates the significance of this factor.

    A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.

    The fourth paper http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/ exposes some of the mistakes that have been made by the ‘Consensus’ and the IPCC

  68. I wouldn’t get too hot under the collar about surface tension and heat transfer if I were you. You are of course quite right but my reading of the green fraternity (and sorority) is that they know no science, can’t do maths and are completely impervious to any sort of reason. I suspect that most of the people who come up with these stellar concepts are liberal arts/sociology types.

    Why not? Bad science is bad science. False statements or ideas left uncorrected propagate. I’m not “hot” about it, I just want to correct it before it becomes entrenched as a meme — “surface tension in water doesn’t permit heat from the air to penetrate” — to further muddy the proverbial waters or give AGW enthusiasts still more ammunition (“Look how silly this skeptical argument is. You just can’t trust climate skeptics.”).

    As for AGW proponents being bad at math and not knowing any science — do you seriously think that? The global circulation models may well be wrong, but they were not built by people who were ignorant or mathematically incompetent. If they were, they wouldn’t run at all. Some specific climate scientists — Michael Mann and James Hansen come to mind — may well be incompetent or pursuing some sort of secondary agenda, but I very much doubt that the vast majority of climate scientists, including those that believe that there is enough evidence to support the CAGW, are anything but sincere, well meaning, and at least reasonably competent.

    One can be competent, sincere, honest, well meaning, and mistaken. Quite easily, in fact. To quote Bertrand Russell (IMO one of the most brilliant minds of the last two or three thousand years) — Even when the experts all agree, they can be mistaken. And indeed, historically, often enough have been.

    I find the evidence and arguments for CAGW (given so far) to be unconvincing. I’m at least moderately competent in physics, mathematics, computation including large scale numerical simulations, statistics, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, and have been working through topically relevant climate physics such as the contents of Petty’s book on Atmospheric Radiation or Caballero’s book on Climate Physics. I’m sincere in my being unconvinced. I’m reasonably honest (Trust me, he says, would I lie?:-). I mean well — I’m sincerely, honestly convinced that the CAGW scare has caused an economic depression in Europe that has its currency teetering on the edge of extinction, has cost the people of the United States a small fortune in misdirected investment, excess taxes, and artificially inflated energy prices, and is perpetuating crushing levels of global poverty and literally killing millions of people a year as a consequence.

    I could be wrong!

    Maybe CAGW is completely accurate, and in fifty years we’ll all be amazed that anybody could have thought otherwise. Or (since I’ll be dead) humans who are alive then will think that.

    If there is a conceptual sin in climate science, it is that those four words are never uttered by climate scientists. In physics, a transluminal neutrino is provisionally reported, and I didn’t hear one single physicist assert that the observation was “impossible”, or “wrong”. Physicists all were mentally prepared to reserve judgment and wait to see if their seriously well-supported beliefs in relativity were about to be crushed. Climate scientists, on the other hand, are certain that their predictions of the Earth’s climate fifty to a hundred years from now are accurate even as they fail badly on as short a time scale as fifteen years.

    rgb

  69. Another run at this wonder study.
    As usual in climate scienciness, AGW is not defined in the survey.
    Do you believe in manmade effects upon weather?
    Of course I live in a city.
    But asking a technically trained person, if they believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, without defining this thing, is no more valid than asking if they believe in the tooth fairy.
    Are we debating microclimate changes, as in deforestation? As in city expansion?
    Or local climatic effects as in the destruction of the Ural Sea?

  70. Aral Sea according to google, but the point was, questioning ones belief in a poorly defined term, will not produce intelligent results, very useful results for pre-planned propaganda, but results devoid of meaning.

  71. NOAA Scientists and others appear to be manipulating historical temperature data. Currently (routinely) reported “Daily and Monthly RECORD Warm Temps” are actually significantly lower than well-remembered (and recorded in local newspapers) thermal highs in the past. Local historical July temps in Fresno CA, for example, historically have exceeded 11OF. in almost all years of record, according to the Fresno Bee newspaper records, taken from National Weather Service. But NOAA’s currently used online data show only rare dates exceeding 107F. (in only four years of record since 1968). Has anyone else noticed bogus reports of ” new records” reported by NOAA? If so I suggest you look into past HARD-COPY temp records (not governmental internet databases, as these are easily manipulated).
    Also, re: the % of scientists agreeing or disagreeing with global climate change, science is not about concensus; rather, it is about repeatability / predictability. If scientific concensus was an operative factor, then the Earth would be the center of the universe and it would be flat.

  72. MattN says:”This has been “out there” for almost a year and this is the first I’ve heard of this.”

    I believe this experment shows when a tree falls over in a forest it doesn’t make a sound

    Mike SG says:” 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!”

    Since all Engineers and Geologists in Alberta is required to get their licencing through APEGA I do not see how there could be a bias? Unless someone has a bias against Canada? You been watching to much south park.

  73. I’ve been an operational meteorologist for 32 years. On radio for a year, then television for 11 years, then forecasting crop yields during the growing seasons and energy demand based on the effects of weather.

    No, I have never had contact with anybody in the oil industry, though some accuse me of that when I express my views.. I trade commodities for a living with my own account from my house, doing 100% of my own research and forecasting.

    In the 1990’s until around 2002, without doing extensive research on climate change and believing much of what came from the experts, climate scientists, I had several assumptions, that included:
    1. CO2 was probably responsible for most of the warming and have these potential consequences
    2. Future hurricanes may be stronger because with warmer oceans
    3. Melting ice would cause sea levels to rise and people living on the coastlines would have mounting issues.

    However, I wrote several articles stating that before any actions, costly or otherwise are taken, we should study the potential harm vs benefits of increasing CO2. There were also some benefits:
    1. CO2’s role in photosynthesis is clear. This fact alone and the increase in crop yields and world food production seemed greater than all the negatives combined
    2. Energy consumption for heating would be reduced. Yes, increases for cooling in the Summer but my calculations should a big net benefit annually
    3. Earth’s creatures have always done better when our planet is warmer and worse when its colder. Not only this, if CO2 had this effect, it might be worth the warming just to minimize the risk of a future ice age. An ice age would cause an unimaginable crisis with over half the world starving to death. Heck, just a mini ice age would cause world wide crop failures and catastrophe.

    I stopped believing everything the climate scientists and other experts emphatically stated with confidence because it was always completely one sided. An objective/honest source would at least point out the benefits that I was certain of in my mind.

    The game changer for me in becoming convinced of the fraud was the role of CO2 in increasing crop yields and world food production that was being suppressed and lied about.
    I spent thousands of hours doing my own research. I learned to recognize bias and extreme bias in papers and studies. For instance, there were many studies that showed increasing CO2 would decrease crop yields. They usually got there by speculating about things like the warmer world would result in more insects overwintering and then damaging crops the next growing season or that intense heat waves and droughts would do more damage than the benefits of CO2 fertilization or that CO2 fertilization caused weeds to grow faster than crops and they would offset all the benefits.
    Knowing alot about agriculture and crops, some of this junk was laughable but was from peer reviewed papers.

    The world was being bamboozled and legit science had been hijacked by a bunch of scientists that for some odd reason were producing all these results that already had a preconceived assumption and conclusion before they started the research and were getting there with tactics that shocked me(in ways that my expertise/experience verified as being incorrect).

    The last 11 or so years, its no longer a shock but still very sad. One of my saddest moments was last year, my 1st grade daughter who goes to an excellent school here in Indiana came home with her science book. They had been talking about climate change in their science class. The book and teacher taught her that carbon dioxide is pollution and you know the rest of how that goes.

    I’m a chess coach at 3 different schools and am friends with all the science teachers there.
    We have great discussions on many things but they avoid this topic with me. They are great teachers but they and their books are teaching the wrong thing about climate change and CO2. This also goes on in most colleges.

    We are indoctrinating our youngest generation to be members of global warming/climate change religion. This is what makes me the saddest.

    They are brainwashed with junk science. PHOTOSYNTHESIS is not a theory. Sites like this one are helping to offset the tremendous costs that these zealots have caused. Much money has been flushed down the toilet chasing CO2 as pollution but the biggest cost has been our young people minds.

  74. rgbatduke says:
    August 13, 2013 at 10:18 am

    I find you the most entertaining, educational and provocative poster here. Why don’t you team up with the Dane, Bjorn Lomborg, and write a book about real science, good economic analysis, and common sense being applied all at the same time?

  75. Don’t you think that studies of “defensive institutional work” should more properly be focused on government agencies, academia and NGOs? Where that type of activity is the standard operating procedure!

  76. rgbatduke says:
    August 13, 2013 at 3:13 pm: “…I’m sincerely, honestly convinced that the CAGW scare has caused an economic depression in Europe that has its currency teetering on the edge of extinction, has cost the people of the United States a small fortune in misdirected investment, excess taxes, and artificially inflated energy prices, and is perpetuating crushing levels of global poverty and literally killing millions of people a year as a consequence….”

    As well meaning as these people are, in light of the facts of malaria and starvation and so on and on, they are monsters. An objective review of the outcomes of their medicine and the failures of their projections should have made them seek further answers; instead, they just become more hardened in their approach. I hope there is a special place for them.

  77. Really interesting survey of Geoscience experts in Alberta Canada undertaken from a distinctly alarmist orientation, but at least somewhat scientifically, is getting some oxygen because it shows there is no such consensus unless it is of the un-alarmed type.

    There are various summaries around, which is really useful since the paper itself is hard work, but the following comments I thought were particularly interesting. They are wrestling with how to pursue the alarmist agenda in the face of the scepticism by analysing the scepticism. Good on them. See the results:

    …..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, non-governmental, and corporate organizations.

    Our study confirms that there are significant framing differences regarding the existence of anthropogenic climate change and the consequent calls for action or, equally often, inaction on the policy and organizational level (see Hulme, 2009), even within professional experts in one particular geographical context. 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…….

    Although most experts are positioned somewhere in the middle [of organisational influence], our results indicate that those who are more defensive occupy more senior organizational positions and are much closer to decision-making than activists. This can only partly be explained by adherents of defensive framings being older and more likely to be male compared to activists. More importantly, this entanglement of frames and identities with economic positions raises the question for future research whether these individuals adapt their frames as they move upwards in the hierarchy of industry’s organizations or whether a defensive attitude towards environmental regulation is a prerequisite to such a career. This evidently has an impact on organizational strategies to address climate change and may partly account for the reluctance to develop and implement adequate strategies. Given the impact of this industry on Alberta and the Canadian economy as a whole, it seems unlikely that the defensive institutional work by those in powerful positions within fossil fuel-related firms and industry associations can be breached in the near future without global enforcement mechanisms. And from a policy perspective, the continuing scientific disagreement regarding anthropogenic climate change together with the increasing weariness and fatigue about the subject on the part of the electorate is unlikely to increase policy-makers’ inclination to further regulate GHG emissions……………

    And the conclusion and adjustment to strategy is……a change to Climate Risk?

    As our analysis of the different storylines shows, reframing climate change as a risk to be managed – as has been promoted by the IPCC in their recent report (IPCC, 2011) – has the discursive potential to provide a bridge (Snow et al., 1986) to integrate various frames (except ‘fatalists’ who seem generally apathetic) and inject a legitimate diagnosis, established prognoses, identity scripts, and motivational consensus. Financial risks would resonate with ‘economic responsibility’ adherents, environmental risks with ‘comply with Kyoto’ and ‘regulation activists’, regulatory risks with all anti-regulationists, and risks of contamination could resonate with ‘nature is overwhelming’…………………

    See the survey
    The categories are fairly self-explanatory? Only Comply with Kyoto and Regulation Activists are truly alarmist.

  78. And you people fall for this kind of misleading information??
    How sad.
    You are being played by liars and fools,
    By the same kind of propagandists who once blogged in support of the Third Reich.
    Wake up. Please.

  79. Sedron L says: “Wake up. Please”

    *rubbing eyes*
    *yawns*
    *looks around*

    Whaaat?

    You have something to say?

  80. rgbatduke writes “The surface layer of the ocean is constantly warming from sunlight and contact with warmer air (when and where the air is warmer!), from falling rain (when it is warmer), from condensation at the surface, and sometimes from heat transport up from underneath (when the ocean thermally inverts so that the surface is cooler and more dense than water underneath it).”

    You missed an important one.and that is downward longwave radiation which cant penetrate the ocean beyond a few microns but is absorbed right at the very surface. Hence more DLR means more evaporation with everything else being equal.

    So in fact the very effect global warming enthusiasts say is warming the surface is also cooling about 70% of it through increased evaporation.

  81. It is clear that it’s time to fire a few people and replace them with friendly ones. The authors of the paper and the editors of the journal will go first.

  82. Meteorologists: skepticism in short term forecast models. The weather will kill you…not the climate. Butterfly effect’s a B. Climate modelers are not held to the same scrutiny/accountability as a forecaster who screws up a severe weather/life threatening forecast.

    Geologists: zoom out on climate focus and look at 100/1,000+ year trends. Nothing to see here. We’re in an interglacial. Warming has helped our civilization thrive. In an ice age…we’re much worse off.

    Climatologists: capitalizing on a coincidental rise in C02 to match a recent time of warm ocean cycles /more active sun cycles of the last half century, ‘adjusting data’, having urbanization aid in heat island effects…only focus on 30 year trends. No accountability on models that grossly over predict warming. No criticism about past model failure and inability to forecast the future. Make outlandish claims in order to futher government funding.

    Pretty simple to see who’s justified and who’s not.

  83. As an engineer, I agree with the assessment of other engineers heartily. Climate science is anything but reliably predictive yet. I havent seen them predict 20 year climate change with even the remotest of reliability, let alone 100 year prediction.

    That said, this paper is very poorly written. I wont hang my hat on this particular paper, even if their results are actually statistically valid. I have a hard time this is actually being published somewhere. Must be a very low grade publication where the standards are low

  84. Gary Pearse says:
    August 13, 2013 at 10:20 am

    “It loses impact here because of the population surveyed is largely in the oil business,…”

    And yet Gary, we accept that (the “97% consensus” survey) a survey of people who’s livelihood is supplied in the form of research grants, researching the very subject they are being surveyed about, is completely credible.

    Clearly, this article from University Alberta is high-brow satire.

  85. Gary Pearse said @ August 13, 2013 at 10:20 am

    The caveate is to remove the unbelievable legions of “environmental geologists” being churned out these days! There will be a lot of joblessness among this group as the hysteria abates. Indeed, I don’t know where all these geology-lite folks are being hired, even before the CAGW force was in retreat. They will be among a terribly long list of asterisked PhDs and MScs when it is all over (BScs can at least go back and pick up a few courses.

    Environmental geology includes:
    Managing geological and hydrogeological resources such as fossil fuels, minerals, water (surface and ground water), and land use.
    Studying the earth’s surface through the disciplines of geomorphology, and edaphology (the influence of soil on living things, particularly plants, including human use of land for plant growth);
    Defining and mitigating exposure of natural hazards on humans
    Managing industrial and domestic waste disposal and minimizing or eliminating effects of pollution, and
    Performing associated activities, often involving litigation.

    Gary Pearse has yet to explain why he believes these are not legitimate discipline areas for geologists to be involved in. I thought we got over this more than a year ago.

  86. I agree with Shiv (August 13, 2013 at 11:26 pm). Any publication that is happy to publish a figure as dreadful as Figure 1, and considers the opinions of 1,000 people (in one state of one country!) “science” doesn’t qualify as a quality scientific publication to me. And I would say the same whether the conclusions were pro or against AGW. “Peer reviewed” isn’t code for “infallible truth that can be extrapolated however you like.”

  87. Mike Maguire said @ August 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    They are brainwashed with junk science. PHOTOSYNTHESIS is not a theory.

    A scientific theory is an explanation for some observed phenomenon well-supported by empirical evidence, usually though not always invoking a scientific law, or laws. A scientific law is a statement based on repeated observations describing some aspect of the world. Scientific laws always apply under identical conditions. So yes, photosynthesis is a theory (and a very good one that has stood the test of time). The theory of photosynthesis invokes the law of conservation of mass and Dalton’s law of multiple proportions among others.

    Let me guess, you are an English Lit major, yes?

  88. JimF said @ August 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    rgbatduke says:
    August 13, 2013 at 10:18 am

    I find you the most entertaining, educational and provocative poster here. Why don’t you team up with the Dane, Bjorn Lomborg, and write a book about real science, good economic analysis, and common sense being applied all at the same time?

    I have an even better idea! How about you write a witty, entertaining, provocative novel and publish it! Oh, wait; you already did :-)

  89. Shiv

    You miss the point. What it shows is that there is significant scepticism among professional scientists and engineers. The paper illustrates the point that your opinion is a commonly held one, the post is not drawing any scientific conclusions based on the results of this paper (or any other). The other side do make such conclusions.

    I am only disappointed that this was not given top billing. Perhaps Andrew Neill of the BBC could use this to counter the usual consensus arguments he gets from AGW activists anytime he dares to challenge them.

  90. Funny how these people views are attacked as worthless because they work in one industry , which ironically would carry on regardless if AGW was true or not . But the views of people who work in an industry that would vanish if AGW was not true ,the climate scare industry , have to be taken as if their ‘the word of god ‘ without question .
    Of course if you start from the position that your side is automatically ‘right ‘ and other automatically wrong , you can how that works , self-interest only being feature seen in others of course .

  91. @rgbatduke.
    I’m sorry, that was an ill-written remark. Of course it is bad science. I do not think the majority of climate scientists are mathematically or physically illiterate, but I doubt that any properly trained climate scientist would come up with a remark concerning surface tension and heat transfer.

    However, there is a a large pseudo-scientific green movement that lurks on blogs (go to Judith Curry’s blog for a good sample) who do bring up these types of concepts on a regular basis. My remarks were directed at them.

  92. RACookPE1978 says:
    August 13, 2013 at 9:16 am

    “I notice that – just yesterday! – the United States GOVERNMENT – at both the presidential and department level positions (DOE, DOD, DOI, DOE, EPA, NOAA, NASA, NSA, etc, etc, etc, etc) officially and specifically forbade ANY discussion of alternatives or review of the evidence or presentation of papers about global warming or funding of ANY study of ANY kind that did not both explicitly and implicitly support HER catastrophic global warming prejudices and theology.”

    –Surely this can’t be true? Could you please give a source to this information. Thanks.

  93. “In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,””

    How far will she go we do not know. I would say she just gave a big hint though. Lets say if someone is a poster on this site would she have her minions dispose of him/her? We don’t know yet. But their track record shows they do operate in this way.

    ‘Officially’ would be like how the IRS and other agencies eliminated their opposition (conservatives) and we knew about it.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/interior-secretary-i-dont-want-any-climate-change-deniers-in-my-department/article/2534142

  94. The Pompous Git says:
    August 14, 2013 at 2:16 am: “…I have an even better idea! How about you write a witty, entertaining, provocative novel and publish it! Oh, wait; you already did :-)…”

    Heh. Is that sarcasm or praise?

  95. The Pompous Git says:
    August 14, 2013 at 1:28 am

    “Environmental geology includes:
    Managing geological and hydrogeological resources such as fossil fuels, minerals, water (surface and ground water), and land use.
    Studying the earth’s surface through the disciplines of geomorphology, and edaphology (the influence of soil on living things, particularly plants, including human use of land for plant growth);
    Defining and mitigating exposure of natural hazards on humans
    Managing industrial and domestic waste disposal and minimizing or eliminating effects of pollution, and
    Performing associated activities, often involving litigation.

    Gary Pearse has yet to explain why he believes these are not legitimate discipline areas for geologists to be involved in. I thought we got over this more than a year ago.”

    Pompous, I’m not shooting arrows from the peanut gallery. I am a graduate geological engineer and an MSc geologist who didn’t just “manage” but did the engineering and geology on most of the things on your list. I go back far enough to have done hydrology along the route of the Greater Winnipeg Floodway before it was built to predict the effect on farm wells and to calculate the influx of groundwater into the future canal in the early 1960s. It was a large excavation job:

    “Construction of the Floodway started on October 6, 1962 and finished in March 1968. The …… earth excavated—more than what was moved for the Suez Canal. At the time, the project was the second largest earth-moving project in the world – next only to the construction of the Panama Canal.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Floodway

    I have mapped the Precambrian rocks for Geo Surveys in Manitoba and Nigeria, have done mineral exploration on three continents, designed and developed dimension stone quarries and plants (one in Tanzania and developed and operated a marble quarry of my own), planned diamond drilling and trenching programs for mineral deposits, have calculated reserves and resources and designed mineral processing flowsheets (some patented). In feasibility work for mines I have worked in concert with environmental specialists in base line studies – these specialists, whom I respected, were biologists, hydrologists, archeologists would you believe, and design engineers for plant tailings and waste rock disposal and the like (they weren’t all in one person). I’ve designed production operations in Africa for gold, tin, tantalum and rare earth elements. I’m still at it and must be one of the oldest consultants still practicing in my trade.

    My point was that any geology class is stuffed with “environmental” geologists largely because its easier than the other kind and I can’t for the life of me figure out where they are all working,or hoping to work in such numbers – it’s certainly already tough in mining for geology-heavies, the ones that make multi-billion dollar bets. Civil engineers don’t call themselves that anymore – they call themselves “environmental” engineers because they design cities, sewers, storm drains, harbour works, etc. etc. There are no “city” geologists but every city has a department of city engineers. They took up enviro into their name because it is in vogue and they probably feel a little guilty about digging holes and pouring concrete. Environmental geologists don’t take this up because its difficult and challenging. I suspect it was created to increase enrollment in Universities but that may be too cynical (grants to universities are tied to enrollment though). Perhaps its curmudgeonly of me to call it geology-lite but I haven’t come across any where I have been accept in more recent classrooms.

  96. Bruce Cobb Aug 13 12:03pm
    Matthew Marler Aug 13 9:32am
    Rud Istvan Aug 13 9:11am

    I have to agree. I read the Taylor article, then read bits of the original paper. All I could think was that this paper doesn’t say what you think it does. (And Taylor does not appear to be a straight shooter.)

    I copied part of their conclusion, omitting some references (hope I do this right) …
    ______________________________________________________________
    “… fossil fuel industries’ stakes in this struggle are high and, not surprisingly, they are at the forefront of the opposition to carbon regulation.

    … in order to understand this defense and resistance and to move forward with international policies, organizational researchers must gain more in-depth understanding of the subtleties of the contestation and unravel the whole spectrum of frames including those of climate change deniers and sceptics. However, given the polarized debate, gaining access to the reasoning of deniers and sceptics, let alone unraveling their framings, is far more difficult than analyzing supporters of regulatory measures. This has motivated our research question: How do professional experts use frames to construct the reality of climate change, and themselves as experts, their credibility in making recommendations and decisions, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?”
    _______________________________________________________________
    This is not a friendly paper. As others have noted, it’s a small, biased sample (for reasons that are obvious), and just not well done. I’m no expert, but I think the title to this article is … shall we say … overly optimistic.

  97. Gary Pearse said @ August 14, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    Pompous, I’m not shooting arrows from the peanut gallery.

    To manage means to bring about or succeed in accomplishing something. What on earth do you mean when you say that you “did” engineering and geology, not merely managed projects? Are you implying that projects just happen without planning and management, or that management of such projects requires some inferior set of skills to those of a “real” geologist, whatever that means?

    I am not a geologist, but I have worked in mining (1970s) where I was instructed what to do by managers who just happened to be geologists whose skills just happened to fit the list I put at the top of my post. Apropos engineers, I have had more recent experience working with them and I can tell you that I know of no civil/structural engineer who calls him, or herself an environmental engineer.Those who design sewage systems, storm drains etc cetera tend to be called hydrologists. Here’s a list of engineers working at Hobart firm Gandy and Roberts:

    http://www.gandyandroberts.com.au/index_old.htm?/personnel.htm

    I defy you to find the term “environmental engineer” in that list.

    In 2003 I enrolled in the first year UTas geology course which I very much enjoyed. It was not “stuffed with “environmental” geologists”. The course was led by Andrew Tunks:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/returning-to-the-gold/story-e6frgabx-1226332887083

    who is a gifted teacher and he attempted to persuade me to complete the degree. I detected more than a hint that the demand for geologists exceeds supply. Presumably Tunksy doesn’t meet your high, not to mention incoherent standards.

  98. ***
    rgbatduke says:
    August 13, 2013 at 10:18 am

    The thermodynamics of water aren’t all that difficult. Heating water from above is not terribly efficient because — as is the case with most fluids — warmer water is usually less dense than colder water (water is indeed exceptional in that it is “usually” instead of “all the time” — water achieves its greatest density at 4 degrees centigrade which is why almost the entire volume of the ocean is at 4 degrees centigrade, plus or minus a degree.
    ***

    Rarely any issue w/your replies, but your density comment is for distilled water, not seawater. But you knew that…

    My guess is that 4C is the very long-term equilibrium temp for near-freezing seawater sinking into the abyss and well-preserved by stratification.

    • I have tried heating water from above and the experience I had was that the surface of the water totally rejects the heat. I fired a paint stripping heat gun, 450degsC(no more mister nice guy) and the water remained stone cold. As far as I can tell we need to know a lot more about what surface tension really is.

  99. ***
    TimTheToolMan says:
    August 13, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    You missed an important one.and that is downward longwave radiation which cant penetrate the ocean beyond a few microns but is absorbed right at the very surface. Hence more DLR means more evaporation with everything else being equal.

    So in fact the very effect global warming enthusiasts say is warming the surface is also cooling about 70% of it through increased evaporation.
    ***

    Evaporation is a cooling process of liquid water given a static heat input. The cooler surface water + added latent heat in the above atmosphere balances to zero. If you add heat (say from CO2 backradiation), the total energy (thin water-surface + latent water vapor heat) increases by that amount. The total has to equal the added heat — 1st Law of Thermo.

    I agree that increased CO2 backradiation can’t be “stored” like increased SW solar radiation (which can penetrate the water surface significantly). This means even the long-term equilibrium for CO2 effects are very short — days at most, IMO. One wonders if this effect is properly modeled in the GCMs. If they did, the equilibrium climate response time from CO2 effects would be essentially zero. If one wants to postulate that increased CO2 increases SW radiation, they better have extraordinary evidence…

  100. Rud Istvan says:
    August 13, 2013 at 9:11 am
    And all the others like Anonymoose, Ratus and Jai:
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    This is old news in a new wrapper. The whole AGW issue has been discussed openly in the APEGA organization for years. While this paper might reference those in the petrochemical industry, the discussions have included all members of the Association. I am a member of APEGA and I have been a member in several other provinces and territories; my education and work was largely in water resources and pollution control and like many of my friends, I don’t work for “oil”. But having been trained in weather, hydrology and geology and studying temperature issues for both my vocation (engineering) and my avocation (farming and ranching); and having lived well beyond retirement age; I, like many others in the applied sciences, have a healthy skepticism of certain theories that don’t fit our vision of reality based on hard sciences, research and experience, especially when our family histories contain many recorded variations in the climate both locally and in far reaches of the planet.

    But then, you may have only experienced or have knowledge of a much shorter time frame or you take certain theories as fact. Maybe “Gasland II” has skewed your view. For example lighting water on fire in southern Alberta has been a fact of life since water wells were first drilled about 120 years ago (http://albertacommunityprofiles.com/Profile/Medicine_Hat/6 We have had oil and gas seeps in the surface for recorded memory – yet somehow people claim this is new. Maybe there are more seeps, maybe not. Those of us who have seen it all our lives find it hard to get really excited about it. Various gases in water wells in Alberta is normal and the government produces a guide for rural users to manage well water gases: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/%24department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex637

    http://environment.alberta.ca/02883.html

  101. Anthony says:

    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.

    While James Taylor (who is a Forbes contributor, not a writer – he works for Heartland) said this, it’s not what the study said.

    From the authors of the study:

    Dear Mr. Taylor –

    ….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…..

    But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!

    We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.

    Best regards,
    Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer

  102. From the study:

    We examine the discursive contestation of climate change and associated expertise by professional engineers and geoscientists. We use an instrumental case to examine the debate among these professionals who dominate the oil industry in Alberta…

    For obvious reasons, fossil fuel industries’ stakes in this struggle are high and, not surprisingly, they are at the forefront of the opposition to carbon regulation…

    However, these professionals do not only engage in a dispute over the ‘cause’ or content of their claim, i.e., the appropriate definition of an issue or the adequacy of a proposed solution; they also engage in identity and boundary work – to varying degrees – to legitimate themselves as experts and de-legitimate opponents as non-experts, while establishing the cognitive authority of their version of science versus others’ non-science. Defense can result from different worldviews and from identity threats….

    Following Levy and Rothenberg’s (2002) examination of the automotive industry, we find that professional experts employed in the petroleum industry are more likely to be sceptical of the IPCC and of anthropogenic climate change. Given this, the defensive institutional work of these professionals to maintain existing institutions clearly exceeds the mere maintenance of ‘routines and rituals of their reproduction’ (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 234). Marquis and Lounsbury (2007) suggest that banking professionals are more able to resist due to their stronger professional identity; Jonsson (2009) finds that professional resistance differs across firms, depending upon the relative influence of professionals and the logics associated. Our research connects and extends these findings to understand how defensive institutional work is performed in response to insider-driven challenges. We find that the heterogeneity of professionals’ framings is a function of their degree of identification/mobilization with others (as suggested by Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007) but is also a function of their degree of defensiveness against others (as suggested by Maguire & Hardy, 2009), even other insiders.

    Given the defensive status of the professionals working in the petroleum industry and the entirely predictable resistance to mainstream climate science as articulated by IPCC, it is a little surprising that the largest group of respondants support regulation of GHG emissions.

  103. Barry!

    And, further study proves:
    97% of government-paid bureaucrats want their government-paid jobs to continue.
    And 97% of government-paid senior bureaucrats DEMAND that their UN-Inquisition silence any and dissent against their government-paid control of the world’s energy and political capital.
    And 97% of government-paid “scientists”: demand their government-paid laboratories and salaries and international travel and international publicity continue, especially if it means that government-paid scientists continue to get their publicity and grants and salaries.

Comments are closed.