Image Credit – Wood For Trees and Werner Brozek
From the Investor’s Business Daily:
The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close.
Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don’t.
But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm.
This is the finding of the peer-reviewed paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” and this group is categorized as the “Comply with Kyoto” cohort.
Members of this group, not unexpectedly, “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
Academics Lianne M. Lefsrud of the University of Alberta and Renate E. Meyer of Vienna University of Economics and Business, and the Copenhagen Business School, came upon that number through a survey of 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists. Read More At IBD
The study, Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change, by Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer can be found here.
A couple interesting quotes within:
“Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, nongovernmental, and corporate organizations.”
…
“The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue.”
The Investors Business Daily Article goes on to note that:
If the alarmists are getting only limited cooperation from man, they are getting even less from nature itself. Arctic sea ice, which sent the green shirts into a lather when it hit a record low in the summer of 2012, has “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”
“This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.
At the same time, the Antarctic “is now approaching 450 days of uninterrupted above normal ice area,” says the skeptical website Watts Up With That, which, also using University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research data, notes that “the last time the Antarctic sea ice was below normal” was Nov. 22, 2011.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“What else would you call people whose every effort is to alarm the public over an imaginary scare?” D.B. Stealey
I think the words denialist and alarmist should be confined to issues not regarding facts or truths as I feel it tries to steer topics away from science. Hence making it seem more amateurish. But I guess for articles like the one one Forbes and IBD, its befitting for them to try to move it away from science since they missrepresent the study anyways.
I am a lurker on WUWT I dont generally post much(think this is my third comment all in all) but I have to say something, because I like WUWT but I dont like posts like this one because I feel it caters towards dumbing down the discussion.
p.s excuse my english, second language
Steven Mosher says:
And chris “Acts as an insulator” means what it says. it doesnt say ice IS an insulator, but as you know the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator.
reading is fundamental
——————-
Yes it is Steve, but if you had said that “the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator” , that would have been much more accurate than saying “Ice acts as an insulator”.
Writing is fundamental
To all of you who cringe when “the fastest Ice gain on record” is brought up because it is only the flip side of the most ice lost during the summer. If the positive feed back of open ocean hypothesis were true the arctic would NOT gain the ice back at record pace after it melted in the summer. So this “fastest Ice gain on record” meme does have a point. The point is that there is no “Death spiral” of positive feedback.
“with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”
and when was the previous record? In 2008, the year after the previous minimum. Which makes sense: if you have a low minimum, when the ice cap refreezes, of course you are going to have a record rate of ice formation. Sort of a silly point to argue, unless you are into misinformation.
Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) said:
February 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm
CAVEAT EMPTOR
The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.
———————————————-
If WUWT is such an egregious propaganda apparatus, how did this guy’s comments get posted?
Vince – try posting something heterodoxical on Real Climate and see if it gets accepted… I’ll wait.
Dum dee dum dum……
stretch
yawn
ZZZZzzzz…..
Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
“with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”
Perfectly normal and in fact expected .
=========================================
Expected with benefit of hindsight?
I am a member of APEGGA, I have nothing to do with oil as I am a computer engineer who works more in telecom/iptv stuff than with the oilfield.
The tired and worn meme that we’re all shills for big oil is just something repeated for the useful idiots of the world to gobble up so as to maintain their narrow world view. These people will never be convinced.
Completely rhetorical, but why is there never any wailing and gnashing of teeth about the incestuous relationship between Big Alarmism and Big Government? Hell, Big Alarmism gets more money from Big Oil than any skeptic I’ve read anywhere online. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good emotionally driven cultural death spiral.
Love your site Anthony, rare commenter, obsessive reader. Keep up the good fight.
Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) says:
February 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Read behind the headlines to discover the truth and don’t expect to find anything other than fraudulent disinformation from the likes of Watt Up With That.
==============
Then why does WUWT allow you to post this, while Real Climate and the Team censor any posts that attempt to post facts contrary to AGW belief?
The difference is that Real Climate and Climate Science in general operate similar to a cult. They have a god-head (Hansen) and as with a cult no one is allowed to question doctrine. Any person that does not conform is removed from the cult (Judith Curry).
trafamadore says:
February 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would like to extend my congratulations to tramafadore for participating with facts and logic.
Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) says: February 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm
The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.
Ummm, yeah, it is either that or me throwing up a quick post on an article I came across that I thought others might be interested in.
Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection.
Post links and references to criticisms related to this study and, if they are accurate and substantive, I will add them as an update to this article.
The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint. Walk into a meeting of alcoholics anonymous and you can find 100% of the people have been drinkers.
True to an extent, but the same applies to surveys of “climate scientists” whose paychecks depend on the continued propagation of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative.
Secondly, of the 1077 surveyed, the majority believe warming is partly caused by man.
So what, so do I. The study indicates that most people take a more nuanced view of “climate change” and do not support drastic actions to address a problem that may not exist.
So, if you read this post and immediately think, I knew it, you are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. Read behind the headlines to discover the truth and don’t expect to find anything other than fraudulent disinformation from the likes of Watt Up With That.
Can you please provide evidence/examples of this “fraudulent disinformation”?
complete with appoving comments from the CAGW consensus choir:
18 Feb: Age Opinion, John Cook, University of Queensland: There is no such thing as climate change denial
In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural). Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.
There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists…
A prominent Australian fake expert is Ian Plimer, the go-to guy for political leaders and fossil fuel billionaires. He hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change…
Finally, with consensus denial comes the inevitable conspiracy theories…
A key element to meaningful climate action is closing the consensus gap. This means identifying and rebutting the many rhetorical techniques employed to deny the scientific consensus.
This article was adapted from Understanding Climate Change Denial.
John Cook does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations…
This article was originally published at The Conversation…
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-20130218-2ely3.html
It’s not the 97% (*) of climate scientists (*) who believe in CAGW that is the problem.
(* = grain of salt)
The problem is the huge number of scientists, politicians, and general public who believe that climate change is THE most important problem facing us today, or even the ONLY problem facing us today. Even if it’s worse than anybody thought, it’s not an abandon everything else problem, far from it.
Pat reports on John Cook’s preposterous statement:
“There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.”
Cook cannot cite any testable, reproducible scientific measurements of AGW. Because there are no verifiable, testable AGW measurements. That is the central fallacy in the so-called “consensus“.
So, Vince, 36% of respondents of a vested interest survey may have issues, even if there’s more than 1000 of them, yet less than 100 respondents of a similar survey with a poorly framed set of questions returning a 97% hit rate is gospel truth, is it?
Bye bye!
[+emphasis]
Which is…?
I think that usually when “consensus” is used in regards to climate change it is often
followed by ” of climatologists”.
From theInvestor’s Business Daily article:
Here’s what this looks like:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/02/Figure2.png
Follow this year’s ice extent, along the blue line. It starts off coming up from a record low–over 750,000 square km less than in any previous year–and is rebounding to levels consistent with the past few years, which are distinctly lower the 1979-2000 average. You can see for yourself whether this growth is particularly impressive. You can also see where the curve started, at the minumum, at the end of summer 2012, here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
You can click on various years over on the left to add traces and make comparisons.
Hmm. Yes, there are a few weeks of ice growth left, but the curve is leveling off; the steepest part historically comes around November-December, as winter sets in. So, we have a “new normal” amount of ice, rebounding from a record low–I guess it had to have record ice growth to get back there.
Interesting that the max ice isn’t retreating as much as the minimum has been. But Hell isn’t freezing over, and neither is the world. If this is how Investor’s Business Daily describes data, I wouldn’t want to bet my hard-earned money on their advice.
Mr Mosher,….Inconvenient Ice Study: Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/inconvenient-ice-study-less-ice-in-the-arctic-ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
Sooo, which one of them high-falutin’ climatologists has a climatology degree? Hansen? Mann? Santer? Jones? Briffa? Any of them??
It would be helpful if anyone reporting on a poll of “Scientists and Engineers” would report numbers of respondents, and poll results, separately for each group. Science and Engineering are different, though closely related professions, with overlapping, but non-identical skill sets. Each historically has informed the other, and applied scientists are often a bit of each. A good engineer might make a good scientist, and vice versa, but there’s no guarantee; I’ve seen more than a couple from each group that don’t fully grasp what the other group does. Any divergence of opinions between the two would be interesting; it would also be interesting to know whether the opinions of a small group of scientists were being lost among those of a much larger group of engineers.
wow, impressed with the range of posts; clearly not shaped by omission censorship. Props!!!
Steve Mosher makes a many valid points and i am on the fence too looking at the the polarized (pun intended) camps of faith based science on each side of the fence.
There simply has not been enough global measurements, of enough global metrics, to make a definitive global prediction let alone establish causation (on a global scale). Each side quotes models, or slams models….analysis of ice cores, or re-analyss of ice cores…blah blah blah
It is the process of science, in its purest form, to observe and wonder…test and measure…repeat
Climate change is a standard globally; that is to say always changing. So where is the worry?
Well boy and girls as this intellect sits on the fence looking at both crowds squawking it just goes hmmmm. The Sun is the driver of the climate on the Earth. The insolation of the sun’s energy varies as the planet wobbles, precesses, and dances eccentrically about the shining orb, so it does not simply warm like a cup of water in front of the fire.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_3.php
According to a theory, only acknowledged in the mid 1970 (due to faith based elitist science), the globe should be well on its way to a minor glacial period for the next 10,000 years or so; i.e. ice formed during the winter at each pole should persist, in some fashion, through to the next summer and SLOWLY accumulate. And so…
* a trend to an ice free summer in the Arctic ocean seems strange (great rebound in ice formation in the following winter is not so strange especially due to the large amount of fresh water drained into the arctic gyre from Russia, less ice to reflect sunlight when the sun smiles so much less) during a creeping to a glacial era
* parts of the Antarctic is loosing ice net mass from SOME of the shore but gaining net mass in SOME of the rest of the continent; again i go hmmm i wonder if this could affect the rotational inertia of a planet…and i wonder if that could be a bad thing for 7 billion tiny “dinosaurs”
* tree lines on all continents are advancing northwards; hmmmm
* polar bears seem to be dying of starvation and drowning to death; hmmmm, that”s weird
* lakes in Russia boiling off methane, birds are changing their migration or not migrating, virus’ and molds scourging wildlife all about…
* seems to be an increase in water redistribution all over the place, hmmmm
It probably doesn’t “mean” a thing, no worries mate, business as usual…but there does seem to be a lot of interest in weather based satellites being launched, hmmmm; ahh it’s probably just for a new cable station or cell phone app…
I know you say that does not seem like someone on the “fence”, but the fence it is since these and many more observations may not have a single causation, let alone one humble green house gas
Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
“That’s why in the final analysis area and extent are not the best metrics for understanding the total picture. That’s why volume in the end is a better metric.”
The other half of the picture is that there are reliable techniques of measurement for area and extent but only new and untested techniques for volume. The satellites bounce something off the surface of the ice. One uses a laser I believe. They are measuring the relative bumpiness of the ice and using it as a proxy for volume. Obviously, such techniques must be supplemented by some other technique such as using sonar to measure the bumpiness underneath the ice and then the two sets of results must be combined in a grid that accurately matches surface to undersea. At this time, the undersea measurements are only spotty and only enough to allow one to conclude that the surface measurements are plausible as measures of volume. They cannot be said to confirm the surface estimates of volume.
However, even if the satellites and their undersea partners proved to be perfect, they give us a picture of volume that goes back only ten years at most. Many faithful believe that the old ice was bumpy above and below the surface and that all the extent recovered since the summer is thin. Such a belief is nothing more than convenient mythology. No one knows. The relevant measurements beyond ten years into the past simply do not exist. Some true believers might say that today’s satellite and undersea measurements support the view that old ice is bumpy and high volume while new ice is smooth and fine. But why bother gathering evidence to support what must remain a myth?
Kajajuk, there have been little tiny up and down wobbles throughout this interglacial. In fact there is no time without a wobble, as far as we know. The current wobble is well within the range of all the other wobbles, again, as far as we know. Slight upward wobble here, slight downward wobble there, no big deal really. When the next glacial comes, it will be relatively quick, geologically speaking. One or two or even 20 years with “lower than normal Arctic ice” won’t stop it.
kajajuk;
Well boys and girls as this intellect sits on the fence looking at both crowds squawking it just goes hmmmm.
>>>>>>>>>
Well Kajajuk, if you’re going to jump into this forum casting yourself as an “intellect” looking down your nose at us “squawkers” I can suggest that you may be in for a rough ride. You may want to begin by getting your assertions correct and doing a bit of research:
1. If you think the sun is THE major driver of climate, then I suggest you research the “faint sun hypothesis” and you may want to review articles and comments (and responses to) by Leif Svalgaard. You may discover that the topic has been discussed in considerable detail, and that your assertion is premature.
2. Less ice to reflect sunlight is too simplistic. Under a range of circumstances the albedo of water exceeds that of ice. Soot collects on ice, but not on water.
3. The notion that unbalanced ice formation in the Antarctic might affect the rotational inertia of the planet sent me reaching for a calculator but I had to stop and grab tissues instead due to a cola up the nose moment. I decided to just suggest that given your “intellect” that you do the calculations yourself to see just how silly a notion that is. By doing it yourself you’ll learn a lot more than me telling you.
4. If polar bears were actually starving and drowning in any numbers your statement would be true. But it isn’t. The polar bear population has doubled to quadrupled (depending on whose numbers you use) in the last couple of decades, and the stories of starving and drowning bears have been debunked as isolated incidents presented fraudulently on this and other sites.
5. Russian lakes boiling off methane? In what quantities and how is it different that frozen lakes emitting methane from rotting debris in the past? Birds changing migration patterns? That’s what resulted in the acid rain mythology….and it also isn’t new. Viruses and molds scourging wildlife? Sorry, on that one you’ll need to cite a study or article to back up your assertion, and I’ll bet it gets picked to shreds in nothing flat if you do. The biosphere by many measures is healthier than it has been in a long time, much healthier than the LIA some 400 years ago, and a long list of species that were on the brink of extinction have recovered.
6. There are several recent articles on this site about the Palmer Drought Index and the most recent studies that are going to be cited by the next UN report which pretty much show that nothing unusual is going on regarding water “distribution”.
7. Your remark about weather satellites being launched with a sarcastic sneer about being for cell phones…. well that’s just the kind of humour one expects from an “intellect”.
It is clear to me that the folks at IBD (and the folks here at WUWT who authored this post) either did not actually read “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” or did not understand it.
I did read it, and this post (and the IBD article) are embarassing misinterpretations. Sadly, the usually very good WUWT has failed this time around.
Here are some important lessons to be learned…
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/science-or-science-fiction-professionals-discursive-construction-of-climate-change/