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/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tom G(ologist)

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.

Londo

But then again, who really cares about consensus? Show me that your theory makes correct predictions and I will listen, no matter how many other “scientists” believe you.

78.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

RMB

You can’t put physical heat into water through its surface. The heat seems to be blocked by surface tension, don’t ask me how, but a hot day does not mean a warmer ocean. Thats why there is heat missing all over the place. The only energy that goes into the ocean is sun’s radiation. Quiet sun= cold planet. AGW is a shot duck.

I saw a tweet to this first in April. The Forbes article is from February. The paper itself from November 2012. Why is it only appearing here now?
Amazing when you consider how quickly Dana Cook’s 97% BS paper became part of the gospel.

Ken Hall

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.

Mark Bofill

Bah, stupid engineers. What do they know. Aside from how to make things, how to make things work reliably, how to predict things, how to confidently predict things, how to know when things can’t confidently be predicted, and how to guarantee reliable and consistent results, they’re practically ignorant.
/sarc

Reblogged this on makeaneffort and commented:
Someone sat CNN should get on the air and brief the President!

MattN

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

Resourceguy

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.

genomega1

Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

numerobis

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

The survey is of members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta. No potential for bias or conflict of interest there!

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

So much for the AGU position.

Theo Goodwin

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?

David L. Hagen

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.

JimS

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.

Ken Hall

numerobis… 97% (to the nearest 70%) of Climate alarmists believe the output from models (which is the only place they can get all the alarm the grant funding bodies require), over real data. Your point?
Mine is that Engineers rely on truth and facts or people die. Climate alarmists rely on failed models, or else they lose some money and tomorrows chip paper has one less hysterical headline.

Of course meteorologists, engineers and geoscientists don’t believe human-induced greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. Their funding does not depend on that belief.
On the other hand, the climate science community is funded to examine the effects of manmade CO2 on climate. If there were no anthropogenic effects, there would be no funding for their research. That’s how the funding agencies create the consensus!

Rud Istvan

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

mike

If you have the stomach for it, interview with mann http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

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

rabbit

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.

AnonyMoose

Apparently the engineer who heads the IPCC is in the minority.

NotAGolfer

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.

RACookPE1978

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?

Matthew R Marler

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?

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.

Chris

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.

Matthew R Marler

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.

Richard M

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.

Steve C

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.

Geoscientists? To hardcore activists this will only strengthen their belief in a Big Oil conspiracy.

NotAGolfer

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.

Latitude

1077 professional engineers and geoscientists…
Engineers and geoscientists are not known for being hysterical bedwetters

FerdinandAkin

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?

Matthew R Marler

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.

Joseph

John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, SkepticalScience hardest hit.

Eustace Cranch

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.

RockyRoad

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?

Resourceguy

“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.

RockyRoad

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.)

pat

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.

Rattus Norvegicus

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

Garfio

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.

Theo Goodwin

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.

Mark Bofill

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

jorgekafkazar

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.

Chad Wozniak

@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.