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.
Previous posts and this is to respond to a request to cite my points that put me on the warming side of the debate.
Last post implies Arctic climate change of late, and the next citation is a bit mealy mouthed but was the type of information that led to my watching about polar bears…
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2246
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=80101367459
Tree line information was posted earlier.
I remember an article a while back that was a simple (un-speculative report, except that it may be liquid methane at the bottom of the lake stirred up by a storm) about a Siberian lake that appeared to be boiling…i could not find that article, but a search “methane gas release russia” led to 301,000 hits so the article is likely a needle amidst all the hay, but…
The Independent has done at least two articles on this. The latest…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html
http://terryorisms.com/2011/12/17/huge-methane-releases-stokes-global-warming-fears/
An earlier BBC news release that states ‘No alarm”…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8437703.stm
There are reported vast amounts of methyl hydrate on the continental margins of the Arctic Ocean…0.7 to 4.4 trillion cubic meters in Alaska alone;
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/118ns_003.htm
A bathymetry map of the Arctic Ocean suggests this estimate by the energy sector may mean there are more than 24 times this amount (an estimate by me by 15 degrees for Alaska divided into 360 for the shelves not including the area of the continental shelves)
http://geology.com/world/arctic-ocean-bathymetry-map.shtml
This does not include any estimates from permafrost or at the bottom of lakes around the sub-arctic or arctic terranes.
I concede that the migration anomalies of birds (and other species) and the mass die offs of 81 species in 31 countries since the start of 2013 cannot be tied to climate perturbations alone.
hmmmm, * seems to be an increase in water redistribution all over the place”
This is an observation of mine own, as far as i know. It could be tested within a 100 hours of study, but not on my immediate to do list;
* a survey of precipitation records in global zones: equatorial, and temperate… maybe by longitude and latitude “squares” or types of regions with respect to precipitation (zones)
* analysis of data for an approximate curve of best fit… look at the first and second time derivatives for max and min or especially no change,..
or look for simple trends if curve is linear like…blah blah blah
* analysis of year (and/or month) totals over time and in relation to the median (is there redistribution between the zones? is there no significant change?)
* calculate the precipitation total for the Earth on a yearly basis (and/or monthly) Is there more water vapour in the the atmosphere or less? How much is there?
This may be a case of seeing what the media wants me to see, so all i can do is apologize for stating an opinion, and can offer no citation.
If so many scientists do not believe global warming is caused by man, doesn’t that tend to show they might be scared into silence? Are they depending on government funding for their research, that would get cut if they came out with their beliefs? How about their acceptance in media and scientific journals, most of which have an agenda of their own?
So much for the right to their personal opinion.
Thanks Gail C for your post.
I finally got around to reading it. And yes, i not only have considered volcanism in the polar regions but have been fascinated by the idea and science behind it leading to many manic research sessions. Most of the articles i have read previously, and enjoyed the ones i have not come across. The Wood institute is frustrating, because (and sadly typical) they provide much background info but delve into speculation about coming research and meaning. The follow-up to which i can not find. Still waiting for the 2003 speculation of exploring possible “new” life at “discovered” hydrothermal vents around the Gakkel Ridge, as one example.
As a layman this becomes profoundly irksome.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is much yet to explore before proclaiming a cause of global warming, iff there is a long term trend to warming.
There are also at least a half dozen inactive (or active? are they being monitored?) volcanoes under the west antarctic ice sheet.
All these systems (and have all of them been discerned?) are inter-related and beg more study than simply pointing fingers at CO2 and over-reacting. A reaction that might have little to no effect or might even worsen the situation.
theuglytruth says:
February 20, 2013 at 1:33 pm
If so many scientists do not believe global warming is caused by man, doesn’t that tend to show they might be scared into silence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately, science has a very very long history of being influenced by issues other than the evidence.
“David says:
February 20, 2013 at 1:09 am
Philip Shehan, your assertions concerning Frederick Seitz are without merrit, and even shameful.”
I am aware of Seitz’s achievements. No human being is always right or always wrong.
His positive contributions to science do not invalidate my claims as to his conduct as I have outlined it. Where exactly have I got the facts I state wrong?
Philip Shehan says:
“And on the Oregon petition…
“Joke names such as Geri Halliwell (aka Ginger Spice) have appeared on the list.”
Fibbing again? Prove your assertion. Every co-signer is listed alphabetically.
The fact is that the alarmist crowd has tried repeatedly to equal the number of legitimate scientists and engineers that co-signed the OISM Petition. They have failed miserably, not coming anywhere close to the 30,000+ OISM signatories. The OISM Petition is the true consensus.
The alarmist ‘consensus’ is a myth, as anyone following this debate — whether they will admit it or not.
Philip Shehan says:
February 19, 2013 at 1:18 am
The 1077 pareticipants in the survey were a self selecting group who decided to respond out of 40,000 potential participants.
*********************************************************************************************************************
Man, I thought I left this thread yesterday but the comments and references just show people don’t understand and don’t look beyond their noses and don’t even understand why there is a red underline under what they have mistyped. (Too angry and typing too fast?)
I know a lot of APEGA (Used to be APEGGA till we got too many “G’s”)
Philip, there were not 40,000 potential participants, there were 68,000. Of the roughly 55,000 were engineers or engineers in training. The others were of various designations such as Geologists and Geophysicists – these are usually guys and gals that get their hands dirty playing in the dirt or using geo-phones and computers to figure out what is in the dirt, or flying fancy instruments behind airplanes and using computers. In fact, I doubt anyone in this association hasn’t used a lot of computers.
We have now bundled all these folks into a common category called “Geosciences”. There are 303 P. Geo’s and 165 trainees in Alberta, for now there are 4150 Geologists and 1240 or so Geophysicists.
Some of the 68,000 may in fact be scientists carrying out scientific studies. But most of us (Whether they are called “GeoSCIENTISTS” or not) are simply applying science to do useful work. Sometimes we may make scientific discoveries but we would consider ourselves scientists.
Some may be scientists, but most are not. In fact, and it may not be appropriate to say it in this day and age, but the favourite engineering sport at the university I graduated from was dunking undergraduate science students.
So, don’t worry about insulting engineers by saying we aren’t scientists. We know it, thank goodness. Think about that the next time you turn your water tap on or flush your toilet or drive down a road and cross a bridge to go fly from LA to New York. If we worked like some of the “scientists” we read here, you’d likely be dead by now.
http://www.apega.ca/About/summary/12-31-2012.pdf
Final comment:
Kajajuk says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Previous posts and this is to respond to a request to cite my points that put me on the warming side of the debate.
******************************************************************************************************************
You ought to go tent camping in Pangnirtung. (no guns allowed) You might change your outlook.
http://www.apega.ca/About/summary/12-31-2012.pdf
Wayne Delbecke,
The difference between climatologists’ and engineers’ models.
Wayne Delbeke says:
February 20, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Wayne, you appear to be entirely missing the point of my comments. I agree with you entirely.
Go back to my post at Philip Shehan says: February 19, 2013 at 1:18 am and read them from there.
I wrote that engineers are excellent at engineering and I would not drive across a bridge designed by a geneticist. I also wrote that as I scientists I would not consider it a put down that I am not qualified to design bridges. Although I am in biomedical research, I recognise that probably the greatest contribution ever made to human health was the engineers who in the 19th century began to put in clean water supplies and sewage systems to take the waste away.
I was responding to other commentators here who think that remarks that engineers are not scientists is some kind of put down. It isn’t.
My point is that scientists have a particular skill set and way of thinking that makes them far more qualified to assess scientific research than engineers or other professionals trained in science subjects and the application of established knowledge. I know from my BSc degree that I was never asked or expected to question whether the course material is true. You are supposed to accept it, learn it and apply it. It is when you begin a research degree that you have to learn and apply a different way of thinking.
That there are actually 68,000 possible respondents rather than the 40,000 that was stated in the research paper, of whom just over 1000 responded, demonstrates even more fully my remarks about the unreliability of self selecting surveys.
—–
Regarding the phony names that appeared on the Oregon petition. The petition organisers admit this has happened and blame it on people trying to discredit the petition. In demonstrating the laxity of the examination of the claims of those signing on, they did exactly that. After being alerted or otherwise discovering such names they are removed.
barry says:
“That many positive respondents in 15 years is pretty desultory.”
barry is making assertions without even understanding the issue. The OISM Petition Project was a response to the proposed Kyoto accord. Once Kyoto failed there was no longer an effort to circulate the petition. Thus, more than 31,000 scientists and engineers [all with degrees in the hard sciences] co-signed the petition in a very short time.
The entire petition reads as follows:
No similar petition from the alarmist side has ever gotten nearly that number of signatures. The reason is simple: the true consensus is on the side of scientific skeptics, who know that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
@Barry, You wrote: “At 0.3% of the entire US science community, the majority of respondents not experts in climate science, ”
Do you really want to go on record as suggesting you think “experts in climate science” have actually produced arguments which haven’t already been debunked by plain old observation?
You should actually think before you make statements that make you look like a trained parrot repeating phrases you were taught by the left wing media. Do you want a cracker now, Polly?
@Barry,
You wrote: “At 0.3% of the entire US science community, the majority of respondents not experts in climate science, ”
Do you really want to go on record as suggesting you think “experts in climate science” have actually produced arguments which haven’t already been debunked by plain old observation?
You should actually think before you make statements that make you look like a trained parrot repeating phrases you were taught by the left wing media. Do you want a cracker now, Polly?
Many other “talking” points you have made were debunked in my quotes directly from the petition. In any case your accusations about a few names slipping through are pedantic in the extreme and in no way discredit the 99.99 percent of very legimate scientist. The argument that 30,000 plus scientist is a small sample of the entire scientific community is pure sophistry, and meaningless in context ar there are no polls ever conducted that the majority of scientist respond to.. The fact is that 30,000 preofessionals trained in the scientific method, meaning trained to NOT offer an opinion regarding a :scientific” question unless they have studied it, did in fact study the issue with adequet depth to offer a clear opinion aimed directly at the C in CAGW.
All contrary surveys are done incredibly poorly in comparision. Their question entirely ignore the “C” on CAGW. (This alone discredits them COMPLETELY) Their rejection of respondents to an ever smaller portion of the respondents until they got the answer they wanted. and calling them “climate scientist” is piss poor science. 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 “what if computer models, 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”.
Your comments of Dr Fred Seitz political leanings is odd to the extreme. 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, directly responsible for over 100 million people murdered. In general people that belive in small govt and freedom, personal freedom, business freedom, property rights, etc, do not like to tell others how to live, and, if left alone, then they tend to leave alone, in fact being more likely to not have an agenda.
tommoriarty says:February 19, 2013 at 6:38 am
Now, let me make this clear (again): I agree with you that “scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW.” But be clear about this also, the Organization Studies paper that your post is about does not support that view – quite the opposite.
This is erroneous, as I stated above in reference to the data in Table 4 on page 1492, “the conclusions are quite clear, well educated professional experts with scientific training/geoscientists are quite skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative.”
So, you misreprsented the Organization Studies paper. Please do not recast by saying your post was really about the IBD article, not the Organization Studies paper, You referenced the Organization Studies paper, and the IBD article was all about the Organization Studies paper. When I challenged you earier about actually reading or understanding the Organization Studies paper you insisted that you had.
Cast aspersions as you wish, but the facts are clear, try reading the article again. I didn’t make any representations, much less misrepresentations…
Brian Angliss says: February 19, 2013 at 8:35 am
To the best of my knowledge, no public opinion polling agencies have tried to survey just scientists about their opinions regarding climate change, but if you have other information to the contrary, I’d be interested in the links.
I have never seen one either. Given the importance of this subject and huge sums of money supporting the Warmist cause, why do you think that there has never been a credible survey by one of the polling agencies on this subject?
This is remarkably close to conspiracist thinking. There is no evidence that climate science (or the multiple specialities of other scientific fields that feed into climate science) has become “corrupted.” Some individuals have made mistakes, and some of those individuals should have corrected their mistakes when they were discovered, but the field(s) as a whole are unaffected.
You can play with your conspiracy meme, but unless you’ve lived under a rock for the last few years and missed Climategate, Himalayagate, Africagate, Amazongate, Hide The Decline, IPCC’s regular use of gray literature and countless other scandals and indiscretions, you have to have some sense that climate science has been corrupted…
I don’t consider WUWT to be “corrupted” because Taylor distorted the study that started this whole thing. But I do blame Taylor, and he should correct or retract his post. And I’ll even go so far as to request that WUWT post a correction/update to the OP that Taylor got it wrong.
I’ll let James Taylor defend himself, go argue with him if you think he’s wrong…:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-among-scientists-crumbles-global-warming-alarmists-attack-their-integrity/
Hi Wayne D,
A summary of credentials will not change my point of view, and in fact strengths my suspicion that science has evolved into a caste system of prestige and privilege. Like some sort of priesthood of old. I have little interest in the opinions of even the most high and mighty; show me the evidence and help be understand the speculation.
As for the Nunavut village camping trip, i expect the scientist will say, “we are not sure” and the residents will say ‘times are a changing’. This actually underscores my perspective of fence siting, with an eye focusing on the natural world. Nature responds to climate change dynamically not after a requisite number of committee meetings, political debates, and professional banquets.
Some excerpts from an impotent 2005 study: http://www.gov.nu.ca/env/sbe.pdf
“The majority of participants in both communities said they have observed less snow on the ground.”
“According to the majority of report participants in both Pangnirtung and Iqaluit, sea ice has been forming later and breaking up earlier in the last 3- 5 years.”
“Like other Arctic communities, Pangnirtung and Iqaluit find unpredictable weather a serious hazard. Hunting and travel parties can no longer predict when the weather will change and what that change will be.”
“While is seems clear that both communities identify wind changes, the specific changes must be looked at individually (see Pangnirtung and Iqaluit summaries).”
“As a result of small sampling, no conclusions can be made with the information that has been collected, however, the observations collected in this report illustrate the fact that Inuit have valuable information to offer to any future studies and have valuable observations to contribute to any future work in climate change.”
More recently…
“ABSTRACT To reduce the negative impacts of climate change on permafrost and Infrastructure, an adaptation strategy must be undertaken to support land use planning decisions. The case of Pangnirtung, Nunavut, is taken as an example. The paper outlines the principal steps undertaken by a multidisciplinary team to assess the current permafrost conditions and presents preliminary data in regards to three main terrain units subjected to development opportunities. Results show the high variability in the distribution of the sediment types, ground ice, and ground thermal regime.”
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/cpc/CPC6-1242.pdf
Each of these papers are more of a “wait and see” than proclamations of eureka. At least the pegs for my tent would be easier to secure into the soil, probably.
oh and BTW, it is the sub-Arctic regions that would start venting methane first, not the Arctic region; the Baffin islands and the North of Greenland are in the Arctic region.
[Important, or impotent study? Mod]
impotent scientifically. My opinion of the paper, based on the recommendations on page 30 and the lack of developing metrics based on the populations observations of climate change.
Certainly not important in my view (scientifically), since it seems devised to mitigate and placate the concerns of the local population. This is just me reading between the lines of the paper;
“The Department is encouraged to continue the collection of observations of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit within Nunavut communities by developing a more collaborative and comprehensive approach with each community in Nunavut and by allowing the interview to focus on the key observations and concerns of individual communities.” p 3
The result of this study was to say there is not enough information to draw conclusions.
The important part of the paper is the documentation of the observation of the inuit. e.g.
“The winter is seemingly a shadow of its former self. It is quite short now and the dark period is when we had ice to travel on, at least starting from November we would be traveling by dog team on the ice. Nowadays, it is right up to December and even right up to Christmas that Inuit are out boating in the fiord. That is how much it has changed since my youth. You can now boat during the twelve days of Christmas. It was unheard of in the old days.” (Jaypeetee Qarpik, March, 2002).” section 5.2.1.6 p 26
““…it is noticeable that the sun is stronger in it’s intensity. These are not real burns, but they are a result of the drying out of the skin. It (skin) starts to peel more. Before, we would only get a suntan. Nowadays, some people start to burn and peel. There are more problems now with the skin cracking and peeling.” (Mosesee Novaqilk, March, 2002).” section 5.2.1.5 p 25
Anyways, it was a interesting read, not without merit, but i thought it was scientifically impotent.
So a sizable proprtion of geoscientists and engineers working for the petroleum industry in Alberta disagree with the IPCC assessments of anthropogenic climate change. And the opinons of these people working for companies with vested interests are immune to being influenced by their job? Because if we apply that premise generally, than the huge preponderance of geoscientists and engineers working for Greenpeace international that endorse the IPCC must also have come to their opinion independently of their job.
Anyone buy that?
I don’t buy any of it.
But that is exactly what is being sold in the IBD article and the one at the head of this thread in regard to petroleum industy professionals.
nothing beats reading the source material.
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html
barry,
As I’ve often pointed out, if it were not for psychological projection, the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have much to say.
You are projecting. The truth of the matter is that many scientists and engineers are being silenced by pressure from their employers, to keep quiet about the fact that there is no scientific evidence supporting the CO2/climate scare.
If you believe that someone who points out the fact that there is no credible evidence that CO2 is a problem is going to get a pay raise or a promotion for stating that fact, then you’ve drunk the Kool Aid. People always have opinions. The problem is when they are pressured to withhold their opinions. And as we have seen repeatedly, expressing the opinion that there is nothing unprecedented or unusual happening is dangerous to one’s employment. So wise up. You have it backwards.
Tayler and justthefactswuwt are projecting a general consensus onto a survey of people with vested interests. The paper they project on to is clear about the sample criteria, which details the bias of that select group (describing it as “obvious”) in clear terms. Have you read it?
barry says:
“So a sizable proprtion of geoscientists and engineers
working for the petroleum industry in Albertadisagree with the IPCC assessments of anthropogenic climate change.”There. Fixed it for you.
A sizable proportion of honest scientists and engineers everywhere disagrees with the demonization of “carbon”. All the scientific evidence extant shows that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. There is no evidence of global harm from the rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 is harmless. QED
Anyone who disagrees with that has their head in the sand, because there is no testable, empirical scientific evidence that AGW even exists. It may. But without solid, measurable, empirical evidence, AGW remains a conjecture. Because there is no quantifiable, testable scientific evidence of global anthropogenic climate change. None.
Thus, no honest scientist agrees that AGW is an established scientific fact. Those who believe that AGW is a scientific, evidence-based fact are simply religious true believers who have no use for the Scientific Method.
Face the fact, barry: AGW is your religion.
barry said: “Tayler and justthefactswuwt are projecting a general consensus onto a survey of people with vested interests.”
You don’t want to go there. The warmist side is filthy with vested interests in government and industries that are profiting obscenely. The scientists themselves are heavily invested in that the more they can convince people there is something to be afraid of, the more their pockets get lined.
barry,
Everyone can see that you’re projecting. You are trying to point out a mote in a skeptic’s eye, when you have giant beams in both your own eyes. You’re not fooling anyone.
There is just no comparison between the rampant corruption among climate alarmists, and scientific skeptics — who are simply asking alarmists to try and prove their case by using verifiable measurements.
Climate alarmists have never been able to prove their case. Instead, they project personal accusations in a desperate attempt to change the subject. But the onus is on the alarmist crowd, barry, not on scientific skeptics.
It is interesting that so many dissenters are disposed of, like it is a new universal policy;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
“Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/18/Government-Scientist-Fired-for-Telling-the-Truth
“Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.”
http://www.naturalnews.com/037665_GMO_scientists_organ_damage.html#ixzz2Lswi4ovW
Whistleblowers concerned for the safety of the public….disciplined, sued, terminated, and muzzled;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2004/07/15/whistleblower_scientists040715.html
The newest divisions of giant corporation are governments.
barry says: February 24, 2013 at 9:49 am
… justthefactswuwt are projecting a general consensus onto a survey of people with vested interests. The paper they project on to is clear about the sample criteria, which details the bias of that select group (describing it as “obvious”) in clear terms.
Can please indicate my specific quotes within this article/my comments where I am “projecting a general consensus onto a survey of people with vested interests”, whatever that means?