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.
Gail Combs says:
February 19, 2013 at 4:56 am
No one said acceptance of AGW was unanimous. The number of scientists in the world numbers in the tens if not hundreds of thousands so compiling a list of dissenters is easy, especially when the list of those who “vehemently reject” includes a number who do not reject the theory outright but are “skeptics” in the true sense who feel the evidence is not strong enough at the present time. That was my position for the first 2 decades of the global warming debate.
And one of those, David Packham, former principal research scientist with Australia’s CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) who complains about the gravy train, cannot have been around CSIRO in the years of the Howard Conservative government when they shot the messengers at CSIRO who were telling them things they did not want to hear concerning AGW.
I understand that a similar attitude prevailed under the Bush administration.
Brian Angliss says:
“A ‘scientist’ is someone who uses the scientific method in order to study how the world works and does so as a profession.”
That eliminates Angliss from the subset “scientists”. Because the Scientific Method is ignored by every purveyor of the CO2=catastrophic AGW [CAGW] conjecture.
Why? Because there is no quantifiable, testable measurement of AGW. Belief in AGW is a conjecture, nothing more. There is no testable, empirical measurement of AGW.
Now, AGW may well exist. But if so, it is too small to measure. It is inconsequential. That is why there is endless discussion over the ‘sensitivity’ number. No one knows for certain what it is, or even the sign.
Next time Angliss pipes up about scientists, keep in mind that by his own definition, he isn’t one. An honest scientist would insist on rigorously following the Scientific Method. And that leads straight to the conclusion that AGW is simply an unfalsifiable conjecture.
And the so-called ‘consensus’ is a myth. The OISM Petition shows us what the true consensus is: CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That is the true consensus of of honest scientists.
Philip Shehan says:
February 19, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Gail Combs says:
February 19, 2013 at 4:56 am
No one said acceptance of AGW was unanimous…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is EXACTLY what is being said.
And to confirm in the mind of the people that “The Science is Settled” and there is a “Consensus” any dissenting fews were either muzzled or attacked with the “Big Oil Funded” smear campaign.
Many of the APEGGA members are Canadian university-educated engineers. When we graduate, we take part in a non-educational ceremony entitled “The Calling of an Engineer.” During it, we swear an oath to be thorough and to try and think of everything that could go wrong and design with the worse case in mind so that nobody will be hurt by our negligence. I doubt the CAGW zealots are thus restricted.
Anthony said earlier –
“Note to commenters: Brian Angliss is just trolling for comments so he can claim “conspiracy theory” in his next hateful blog post on scholars and rogues. He really isn’t interested in much factual content here.”
Yes, I got the sense he would fit in nicely with Laden, Lewandowsky and Cook.
Yes – Brian Angliss also posts at the “Society of Environmental Jouranlists”; “Inside Climate News”; DeSmog and a few others. From reading his posts I reckon his viewpoint and mine are about as far apart as our ages (cause I’m a bit of a fossil). He’ll really hate the post today about the temperature trends at Boulder, CO as he lives near there, Masters from U of C and degree from Penn State not that means anything, just an interesting anecdote from his bio on Scholars and Rogues. Off to read new threads and bye to this one.
Wayne – skiing in Banff today.
Mark Bofill says:
February 18, 2013 at 5:58 pm
I’m merely reiterating the views in the study – that professionals in industries with a vested interest in the climate science debate inflate their own expertise on climate science. I pointed this out in response to justthefactswuwt implying an equivalence of understanding between these professionals and dedicated climate scientists.
No one here would be foolish enough to go to an optometrist to get advice on heart palpitations. justthefactswuwt appears to think that a petroleum engineer is as knowledgable about the effect of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as a physicist that has studied the matter for years.
The structure and scientific underpinning of the IPCC makes it more amenable to a neutral position, but motives are hard to discern, and there may well be bias. The paper that underpins this thread discussion studies, among other things, motivations of the demographic under review. I think IBD and particularly justthefactswuwt have missed the point of their reference material. The article that heads this thread not only misses the point but makes false argument by doing so. That’s all I wanted to point out. I’m sure there will be a thread before long devoted to spotlighting the instituional bias of the IPCC.
Anthony, I’m hardly trolling. I have never written about Lewandowski or his work on conspiracy ideation, so you have no basis for accusing me of planning to do so now. My posts about your website and you personally have been strictly factual. I understand that you may not like what I’ve written, but that’s not the fault of the facts themselves. If you don’t like what I write, then don’t do things that demonstrate you have a double-standard with respect to when it’s OK to pre-publish documents, or that demonstrate that you’re unwilling to run corrections on posts, like this one, that are so blatantly distorted that the victims of the distortions pointed it out themselves.
And you’ll notice that I not once linked back to Scholars & Rogues. Instead I pulled bits of my posts into my comments here. Had I been a traffic troll, I would have linked to my own posts instead.
davidmhoffer: I did answer your points indirectly, as there was no point in addressing every single claim you made. I said “you are correct that much of the math is similar, and that anyone with a certain skillset will be able to replicate much of the results.” That’s an admission that anyone with the necessary skills can do much of what you described in your three posts. But as I pointed out using several analogies that you either failed to understand or chose to ignore, being able to do those things doesn’t automatically make you a scientist or an expert.
D.B. Stealey – that you mention the OISM “petition” is interesting. I analyzed the petition years ago and found that, using the OISM’s own criteria, the total population of scientists would be just shy of 10.7 million. 31,478 signers divided by about 10.7 million “scientists is about 0.3%. That’s hardly a challenge to anyone claiming that the OISM petition “debunks the consensus.” By the way, if you use the OISM “petition” as your standard for who does and does not qualify as a scientist, that makes Taylor’s original Forbes blog even more wrong than it already is, because the APEGA study didn’t survey medical doctors, metallurgists, mathematicians, computer programmers, et al.
Robert in Calgary: I realize that you meant the comparison of me to Cook, Laden, and Lewandowski as the most horrific insult you could imagine, but given John Cook’s science is impeccable and, unlike the author of this post, Cook admits his mistakes and runs corrections when someone points them out to him, I’ll accept your comment instead as an amazing compliment.
Brian Angliss says:
February 18, 2013 at 8:42 pm
“A “scientist” is someone who uses the scientific method in order to study how the world works and does so as a profession. Most engineers don’t study the world in the same way, and the engineering skill set is quite a bit different from the scientist skill set. We can’t simply open up the definition of “scientist” to include anyone who uses the scientific method regularly in their professions because that makes the word meaningless. After all, would you call a medical doctor a scientist in the same way a chemist or biologist or meteorologist is? How about a veterinarian? A professional sportsman? An automobile mechanic? All of those professions and more use the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, testing, and drawing conclusions, but none of them are practicing scientists. And neither are most engineers.”
Preposterous. Are you truly unaware that there have been for centuries medical doctors who were first rate scientists? How about priests? Ever hear of Gregor Mendel?
You consider meteorology a science? What is it about, computer code?
If your effort in this post was to prove that your ignorance of the history of science is unequaled in modern times then you have succeeded admirably.
Brian Angliss
davidmhoffer: I did answer your points indirectly, as there was no point in addressing every single claim you made.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
You answered not a single point about the science sir, directly or indirectly. It is obvious that you are incapable of doing so.
C’mon Brian.
Pick a point. Just one. I gave you a whole list, and at least one is wrong.
But you don’t have a clue which one, or you would have jumped on it.
D.B. Stealey says:
February 18, 2013 at 3:37 pm
“If engineers were surveyed, and 84% of respondents were engineers, what’s the problem?”
I agree. But there is a difference (and this is not meant as a slam to most scientists) between engineers and scientists in general. If an engineer’s output does not work, they go hungry. An engineer has to apply science in practical ways. Somehow, the idiots on left don’t seem to understand this.
From D.B. Stealey: “and 84% of respondents were engineers”
The difference is that engineers apply science to solve problems. If an output from an engineer does not work… eventually they go hungry. I’m not slamming scientists, but it seems that many on the left don’t understand what engineers do.
From D.B. Stealey: You wrote “If engineers were surveyed, and 84% of respondents were engineers, what’s the problem?”
I agree with your sentiment… But must add: The difference is that engineers apply science to solve problems. If an output from an engineer does not work, eventually they go hungry. I’m not slamming scientists, but it seems that many on the left don’t understand what engineers do.
Holocene not all it was cracked up to be;
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
Spring arrives 50 days earlier in the Arctic;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110302171320.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
Could not find the original article, only the abstract…
markx says:
February 19, 2013 at 8:29 am
Brian Angliss is perhaps laboring under the mistake impression that all ‘climate scientists’ are fully qualified in ‘atmospheric physics’.
==========================================
markx, it is far worse then that. The vast majority of ‘climate scientist” are not atmospheric scientist at all. Many are social science professionals who have done papers on the predicted affects of CAGW disasters on society. (They are considered “climate scientist.) Many are biologist in one field or another. They take the predicted disasters from the warmist, then they go to some area of the planet where the climate is outside of the normal flux, (like this has not always occured) and they say, if this trend continues such and such disaster will result. They are now climate scientist.
Most of the OSIM petition was signed by qualified PHDs in the hard sciences. Furthermore the OSIM petition did not pussyfoot around. It directly addresed the C in CAGW, and stated an emphatic No!, and also expressed a strong support for the KNOWN benefits of an increase in CO2. This alone makes the OISM petition far more valid then the 97% of scientist survey.
The strange warmist idea that confirmation bias, group think, selfish greed etc, (the dark side of human nature) only exists in the business world or the world of men who prefer small govt, but is exempt from Goverment people, is quite inane. This is especially true considering that “democide” (death by Govermen), is by far the leading cause of death and murder in the last hundred years.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hawaii.edu%2Fpowerkills%2F20TH.HTM&ei=EnkkUcvvMcemiQLcsoHYDg&usg=AFQjCNHKIzZwk4m_p3j8cPGHGnyqwLudHw&sig2=q4rA_0hVTpQmNXxlW_6oCg&bvm=bv.42661473,d.cGE
Gail Combs says:
February 19, 2013 at 2:05 pm…
Are you serious that consensus means unanimity? It clearly does not. It means (OED) a general agreement of opinion or testimony, a majority view or a collective opinion.
I do not particularly like the term that the science is “settled”, but it means that there is a consensus among climate scientists that to a very high degree of probability anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are having a measurable and significant effect on the global climate. That does not mean that research into details of what the specific effects will be in various regions, how much and on what timescales.
That the BBC has decided that the consensus of scientific opinion is such that the contrary view should not be presented as having equal weight is as reasonable as making such a decision on the view that HIV does not cause AIDS or that vaccinations cause autism.
And on the Oregon petition:
The petition of 31,487 “scientists” is a project of Frederick Seitz, a free market, anti regulation ideologue who as the book Merchants of Doubt points out has been using precisely the same tactics when working for industry in the smoking, acid rain, and ozone depletion campaigns. It was launched with a phony “research paper” tricked up to look like a paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, who strenuously objected to that misrepresentation.
The petition has been collecting signatures since 1998. Signatories are only required to have (or claim) a BSc degree or higher qualification. Possession of such degrees does not qualify someone for the description “scientist” unless they are engaged in research. The website does not explain how it verifies the claimed qualifications or identities of the signatories. Joke names such as Geri Halliwell (aka Ginger Spice) have appeared on the list.
The largest field of signatories, over 10,000, are engineers and over 2000 are medical practitioners. Generally these people are not scientists. There is no provision for those who may have signed since 1998, but have changed there stance in the ensuing 13 years of accumulating evidence to have their names removed. I have changed my views since 1998.
Indeed the website says that it marks the names of those who have died (and therefore unable to review their position) with an asterisk. So the dead get to vote.
The real facts on the OISM petition.
Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
Now show me the list of the 97% petiton that was worded in such a mealy mouthed way as to be meaningless.
Philip Shehan, your assertions concerning Frederick Seitz are without merrit, and even shameful.
”
Frederick Seitz had a major impact world-wide on solid-state physics. His role in the U.S. can be compared with that of Nevill Mott in England and Yakov Frenkel in the Soviet Union. Besides Seitz’s pioneering scientific contributions, he was talented as an institution builder as well as a promoter and administrator of interdisciplinary cooperation in a broad scientific arena. Among Seitz’s awards were the Franklin Medal (1965), the AIP Compton Medal (1970), the National Medal of Science (1973, the country’s highest award for scientists), the NSF Vannevar Bush Award (1983), and numerous awards for distinguished service to U.S. government agencies. He was elected to 9 Academies, including 6 abroad, and honored by 32 doctorates from universities in five countries. In 1993, the University of Illinois renamed the Materials Research Laboratory in his honor. Seitz died in New York, age 96, on March 2, 2008.”
Here are some more details on other signers of the OISM petition….
1. Atmosphere (579)
I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)
I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)
I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)
1. Computer Science (242)
2. Math (693)
I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
1. Physics (5,225)
I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)
Chemistry (4,822)
1. Chemistry (3,129)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)
1. Biochemistry (744)
I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)
I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)
I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)
1. Medical Science (719)
2. Medicine (2,327)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102)
1. General Engineering (9,833)
I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)
BTW, unlike some dead voters the OISM signers did vote, and since have passed.. Your statement in this regard demonstrates a profound lack of logic.
here is a link for you to the actual study. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oism.org%2Fpproject%2F&ei=d5IkUbrnJoP6iwLZn4CoAw&usg=AFQjCNEfMRCvaI3e-4PnBquBgt0CMW6tFg&sig2=l8IVB8p7cwqNZlU9d0xmug&bvm=bv.42661473,d.cGE
From the OISM petition….
Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?
Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.
Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?
Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.
In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.
Are any of the listed signers dead?
In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an “*” is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.”
Mario Lento and David,
Exactly right. Angliss says:
“I analyzed the petition years ago and found that, using the OISM’s own criteria, the total population of scientists would be just shy of 10.7 million. 31,478 signers divided by about 10.7 million “scientists is about 0.3%. That’s hardly a challenge to anyone claiming that the OISM petition ‘debunks the consensus’.”
Horse manure. That is no “analysis”, and Angliss is no statistician. The OISM Petition was co-signed by tens of thousands of scientific professionals who downloaded their copy, signed it, and mailed it in — no emails were accepted. That means that more than 30,000 scientists and engineers took the time to register their professional opinions that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Tens of thousands of science professionals have staked their reputations on those facts.
NO alarmist survey has come anywhere close to those numbers, because the so-called “consensus” is bull crap. The true scientific consensus is that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Angliss is just blowing smoke, like the relatively small alarmist crowd likes to do.
Nothing Angliss says negates the fact that more than 30,000 scientists and engineers have co-signed the OISM statement. CO2 is not a problem, no matter what Angliss and is handful of co-alarmists claim. They have bought into the false True Belief that “carbon” is gonna getcha — and they cannot be seen to climb down at this point, despite the fact that Planet Earth is falsifying their ridiculous global warming superstition.
The Oregon Petition managed to get – what – 32 000 signatories since 1998?
That many positive respondents in 15 years is pretty desultory.
Can anyone advise as to how many people were approached to sign? If we can do that, then we can get closer to understanding whether this is a preponderance of opinion, or a small sample out of many people who may have rejected the petition.
How were the credentials authenticated?
At 0.3% of the entire US science community, the majority of respondents not experts in climate science, and a non-scientific survey methodology, this data should be taken with a bucket of salt by any proper skeptic seeking to understand the expert opinion on human-caused climate change.
77 respondents (out of 10,000 approached) is more representative how?
Brian Angliss says:
February 19, 2013 at 8:17 pm
31,478 signers divided by about 10.7 million “scientists is about 0.3%. That’s hardly a challenge to anyone claiming that the OISM petition “debunks the consensus.”
And by this logic, how many people protested the Keystone pipeline and what is the population of the U.S.?
barry;
At 0.3% of the entire US science community, the majority of respondents not experts in climate science, and a non-scientific survey methodology, this data should be taken with a bucket of salt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And yet despite the supposed broad consensus amongst the science community, attempts by SkS and others to produce a comparable petition to the contrary have not only failed, they have failed miserably. The only surveys that dispute the Oregon petition are comprised of vague and misleading questions responded to by a tiny sample size, and yet are held up as being credible. If the position was credible, given that the fate of the world hangs in the balance, one would think that a clear statement would garner the support of tens of thousands of scientists with a minimum of effort. Yet even with major efforts, not such support had appeared.
barry wants to complain about the splinter in our eye while ignoring the plank in his.
Re; Brian Angliss
What purpose this troll had is beyond me. He overstated his credentials and had to take a climb down, presented no facts or arguments about the science itself that would sway anyone one way or another, demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of both science and engineering and how they overlap, and when invited to discuss a single point of science (of his choosing), his presence evaporated. Ah, ’tis only been a single day, perhaps he will return?
But what he did do is confirm a pattern that we see over and over and over again. Appeal to authority, dismiss out of hand any authority which expresses disagreement as being not qualified. When challenged to discuss the science directly, poof and disappear.
It is trolls like Brian Angliss who prove to me over and over again that the science of CAGW is hollow. If it wasn’t, the CAGW proponents would be eager to discuss it, show their work and data, use surveys with clear, concise language from large cross sections of the scientific community. How hard could it be to do such a thing with the fate of the world hanging in the balance? Instead all they present is bluff and bluster. One cannot help but conclude that is all they have.
C’mon Brian…. just one point of science. Just one. Chicken?