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
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/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
numerobis said @ur momisugly August 13, 2013 at 10:23 am
Isn’t it more that the editors of Nature assume we cannot think?
I agree with Shiv (August 13, 2013 at 11:26 pm). Any publication that is happy to publish a figure as dreadful as Figure 1, and considers the opinions of 1,000 people (in one state of one country!) “science” doesn’t qualify as a quality scientific publication to me. And I would say the same whether the conclusions were pro or against AGW. “Peer reviewed” isn’t code for “infallible truth that can be extrapolated however you like.”
Mike Maguire said @ur momisugly August 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm
A scientific theory is an explanation for some observed phenomenon well-supported by empirical evidence, usually though not always invoking a scientific law, or laws. A scientific law is a statement based on repeated observations describing some aspect of the world. Scientific laws always apply under identical conditions. So yes, photosynthesis is a theory (and a very good one that has stood the test of time). The theory of photosynthesis invokes the law of conservation of mass and Dalton’s law of multiple proportions among others.
Let me guess, you are an English Lit major, yes?
JimF said @ur momisugly August 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm
I have an even better idea! How about you write a witty, entertaining, provocative novel and publish it! Oh, wait; you already did 🙂
Anthony why wasn’t this given top billing?
Shiv
You miss the point. What it shows is that there is significant scepticism among professional scientists and engineers. The paper illustrates the point that your opinion is a commonly held one, the post is not drawing any scientific conclusions based on the results of this paper (or any other). The other side do make such conclusions.
I am only disappointed that this was not given top billing. Perhaps Andrew Neill of the BBC could use this to counter the usual consensus arguments he gets from AGW activists anytime he dares to challenge them.
Funny how these people views are attacked as worthless because they work in one industry , which ironically would carry on regardless if AGW was true or not . But the views of people who work in an industry that would vanish if AGW was not true ,the climate scare industry , have to be taken as if their ‘the word of god ‘ without question .
Of course if you start from the position that your side is automatically ‘right ‘ and other automatically wrong , you can how that works , self-interest only being feature seen in others of course .
@rgbatduke.
I’m sorry, that was an ill-written remark. Of course it is bad science. I do not think the majority of climate scientists are mathematically or physically illiterate, but I doubt that any properly trained climate scientist would come up with a remark concerning surface tension and heat transfer.
However, there is a a large pseudo-scientific green movement that lurks on blogs (go to Judith Curry’s blog for a good sample) who do bring up these types of concepts on a regular basis. My remarks were directed at them.
RACookPE1978 says:
August 13, 2013 at 9:16 am
“I notice that – just yesterday! – the United States GOVERNMENT – at both the presidential and department level positions (DOE, DOD, DOI, DOE, EPA, NOAA, NASA, NSA, etc, etc, etc, etc) officially and specifically forbade ANY discussion of alternatives or review of the evidence or presentation of papers about global warming or funding of ANY study of ANY kind that did not both explicitly and implicitly support HER catastrophic global warming prejudices and theology.”
–Surely this can’t be true? Could you please give a source to this information. Thanks.
“In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,””
How far will she go we do not know. I would say she just gave a big hint though. Lets say if someone is a poster on this site would she have her minions dispose of him/her? We don’t know yet. But their track record shows they do operate in this way.
‘Officially’ would be like how the IRS and other agencies eliminated their opposition (conservatives) and we knew about it.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/interior-secretary-i-dont-want-any-climate-change-deniers-in-my-department/article/2534142
The Pompous Git says:
August 14, 2013 at 2:16 am: “…I have an even better idea! How about you write a witty, entertaining, provocative novel and publish it! Oh, wait; you already did :-)…”
Heh. Is that sarcasm or praise?
The Pompous Git says:
August 14, 2013 at 1:28 am
“Environmental geology includes:
Managing geological and hydrogeological resources such as fossil fuels, minerals, water (surface and ground water), and land use.
Studying the earth’s surface through the disciplines of geomorphology, and edaphology (the influence of soil on living things, particularly plants, including human use of land for plant growth);
Defining and mitigating exposure of natural hazards on humans
Managing industrial and domestic waste disposal and minimizing or eliminating effects of pollution, and
Performing associated activities, often involving litigation.
Gary Pearse has yet to explain why he believes these are not legitimate discipline areas for geologists to be involved in. I thought we got over this more than a year ago.”
Pompous, I’m not shooting arrows from the peanut gallery. I am a graduate geological engineer and an MSc geologist who didn’t just “manage” but did the engineering and geology on most of the things on your list. I go back far enough to have done hydrology along the route of the Greater Winnipeg Floodway before it was built to predict the effect on farm wells and to calculate the influx of groundwater into the future canal in the early 1960s. It was a large excavation job:
“Construction of the Floodway started on October 6, 1962 and finished in March 1968. The …… earth excavated—more than what was moved for the Suez Canal. At the time, the project was the second largest earth-moving project in the world – next only to the construction of the Panama Canal.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Floodway
I have mapped the Precambrian rocks for Geo Surveys in Manitoba and Nigeria, have done mineral exploration on three continents, designed and developed dimension stone quarries and plants (one in Tanzania and developed and operated a marble quarry of my own), planned diamond drilling and trenching programs for mineral deposits, have calculated reserves and resources and designed mineral processing flowsheets (some patented). In feasibility work for mines I have worked in concert with environmental specialists in base line studies – these specialists, whom I respected, were biologists, hydrologists, archeologists would you believe, and design engineers for plant tailings and waste rock disposal and the like (they weren’t all in one person). I’ve designed production operations in Africa for gold, tin, tantalum and rare earth elements. I’m still at it and must be one of the oldest consultants still practicing in my trade.
My point was that any geology class is stuffed with “environmental” geologists largely because its easier than the other kind and I can’t for the life of me figure out where they are all working,or hoping to work in such numbers – it’s certainly already tough in mining for geology-heavies, the ones that make multi-billion dollar bets. Civil engineers don’t call themselves that anymore – they call themselves “environmental” engineers because they design cities, sewers, storm drains, harbour works, etc. etc. There are no “city” geologists but every city has a department of city engineers. They took up enviro into their name because it is in vogue and they probably feel a little guilty about digging holes and pouring concrete. Environmental geologists don’t take this up because its difficult and challenging. I suspect it was created to increase enrollment in Universities but that may be too cynical (grants to universities are tied to enrollment though). Perhaps its curmudgeonly of me to call it geology-lite but I haven’t come across any where I have been accept in more recent classrooms.
Gary Pearse says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:45 pm: Amen, brother.
Bruce Cobb Aug 13 12:03pm
Matthew Marler Aug 13 9:32am
Rud Istvan Aug 13 9:11am
I have to agree. I read the Taylor article, then read bits of the original paper. All I could think was that this paper doesn’t say what you think it does. (And Taylor does not appear to be a straight shooter.)
I copied part of their conclusion, omitting some references (hope I do this right) …
______________________________________________________________
“… fossil fuel industries’ stakes in this struggle are high and, not surprisingly, they are at the forefront of the opposition to carbon regulation.
… in order to understand this defense and resistance and to move forward with international policies, organizational researchers must gain more in-depth understanding of the subtleties of the contestation and unravel the whole spectrum of frames including those of climate change deniers and sceptics. However, given the polarized debate, gaining access to the reasoning of deniers and sceptics, let alone unraveling their framings, is far more difficult than analyzing supporters of regulatory measures. This has motivated our research question: How do professional experts use frames to construct the reality of climate change, and themselves as experts, their credibility in making recommendations and decisions, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?”
_______________________________________________________________
This is not a friendly paper. As others have noted, it’s a small, biased sample (for reasons that are obvious), and just not well done. I’m no expert, but I think the title to this article is … shall we say … overly optimistic.
Gary Pearse said @ur momisugly August 14, 2013 at 5:45 pm
To manage means to bring about or succeed in accomplishing something. What on earth do you mean when you say that you “did” engineering and geology, not merely managed projects? Are you implying that projects just happen without planning and management, or that management of such projects requires some inferior set of skills to those of a “real” geologist, whatever that means?
I am not a geologist, but I have worked in mining (1970s) where I was instructed what to do by managers who just happened to be geologists whose skills just happened to fit the list I put at the top of my post. Apropos engineers, I have had more recent experience working with them and I can tell you that I know of no civil/structural engineer who calls him, or herself an environmental engineer.Those who design sewage systems, storm drains etc cetera tend to be called hydrologists. Here’s a list of engineers working at Hobart firm Gandy and Roberts:
http://www.gandyandroberts.com.au/index_old.htm?/personnel.htm
I defy you to find the term “environmental engineer” in that list.
In 2003 I enrolled in the first year UTas geology course which I very much enjoyed. It was not “stuffed with “environmental” geologists”. The course was led by Andrew Tunks:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/returning-to-the-gold/story-e6frgabx-1226332887083
who is a gifted teacher and he attempted to persuade me to complete the degree. I detected more than a hint that the demand for geologists exceeds supply. Presumably Tunksy doesn’t meet your high, not to mention incoherent standards.
The Pompous Git says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:25 pm
I see.
***
rgbatduke says:
August 13, 2013 at 10:18 am
The thermodynamics of water aren’t all that difficult. Heating water from above is not terribly efficient because — as is the case with most fluids — warmer water is usually less dense than colder water (water is indeed exceptional in that it is “usually” instead of “all the time” — water achieves its greatest density at 4 degrees centigrade which is why almost the entire volume of the ocean is at 4 degrees centigrade, plus or minus a degree.
***
Rarely any issue w/your replies, but your density comment is for distilled water, not seawater. But you knew that…
My guess is that 4C is the very long-term equilibrium temp for near-freezing seawater sinking into the abyss and well-preserved by stratification.
I have tried heating water from above and the experience I had was that the surface of the water totally rejects the heat. I fired a paint stripping heat gun, 450degsC(no more mister nice guy) and the water remained stone cold. As far as I can tell we need to know a lot more about what surface tension really is.
***
TimTheToolMan says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:05 pm
You missed an important one.and that is downward longwave radiation which cant penetrate the ocean beyond a few microns but is absorbed right at the very surface. Hence more DLR means more evaporation with everything else being equal.
So in fact the very effect global warming enthusiasts say is warming the surface is also cooling about 70% of it through increased evaporation.
***
Evaporation is a cooling process of liquid water given a static heat input. The cooler surface water + added latent heat in the above atmosphere balances to zero. If you add heat (say from CO2 backradiation), the total energy (thin water-surface + latent water vapor heat) increases by that amount. The total has to equal the added heat — 1st Law of Thermo.
I agree that increased CO2 backradiation can’t be “stored” like increased SW solar radiation (which can penetrate the water surface significantly). This means even the long-term equilibrium for CO2 effects are very short — days at most, IMO. One wonders if this effect is properly modeled in the GCMs. If they did, the equilibrium climate response time from CO2 effects would be essentially zero. If one wants to postulate that increased CO2 increases SW radiation, they better have extraordinary evidence…
Rud Istvan says:
August 13, 2013 at 9:11 am
And all the others like Anonymoose, Ratus and Jai:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is old news in a new wrapper. The whole AGW issue has been discussed openly in the APEGA organization for years. While this paper might reference those in the petrochemical industry, the discussions have included all members of the Association. I am a member of APEGA and I have been a member in several other provinces and territories; my education and work was largely in water resources and pollution control and like many of my friends, I don’t work for “oil”. But having been trained in weather, hydrology and geology and studying temperature issues for both my vocation (engineering) and my avocation (farming and ranching); and having lived well beyond retirement age; I, like many others in the applied sciences, have a healthy skepticism of certain theories that don’t fit our vision of reality based on hard sciences, research and experience, especially when our family histories contain many recorded variations in the climate both locally and in far reaches of the planet.
But then, you may have only experienced or have knowledge of a much shorter time frame or you take certain theories as fact. Maybe “Gasland II” has skewed your view. For example lighting water on fire in southern Alberta has been a fact of life since water wells were first drilled about 120 years ago (http://albertacommunityprofiles.com/Profile/Medicine_Hat/6 We have had oil and gas seeps in the surface for recorded memory – yet somehow people claim this is new. Maybe there are more seeps, maybe not. Those of us who have seen it all our lives find it hard to get really excited about it. Various gases in water wells in Alberta is normal and the government produces a guide for rural users to manage well water gases: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/%24department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex637
http://environment.alberta.ca/02883.html
Anthony says:
From Forbes writer James Taylor:
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
While James Taylor (who is a Forbes contributor, not a writer – he works for Heartland) said this, it’s not what the study said.
From the authors of the study:
Dear Mr. Taylor –
….In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause…..
But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!
We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.
Best regards,
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer
From the study:
Given the defensive status of the professionals working in the petroleum industry and the entirely predictable resistance to mainstream climate science as articulated by IPCC, it is a little surprising that the largest group of respondants support regulation of GHG emissions.
Barry!
And, further study proves:
97% of government-paid bureaucrats want their government-paid jobs to continue.
And 97% of government-paid senior bureaucrats DEMAND that their UN-Inquisition silence any and dissent against their government-paid control of the world’s energy and political capital.
And 97% of government-paid “scientists”: demand their government-paid laboratories and salaries and international travel and international publicity continue, especially if it means that government-paid scientists continue to get their publicity and grants and salaries.