Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Most Geoscientists Reject AGW Theory

A new peer-reviewed survey found that most geoscientists, also known as earth scientists, reject man-made or anthropogenic global warming theory.

What does this latest study imply?

Well, it strongly indicates that the Cook et al. survey published on Skeptical Science, a neo-liberal, junk science website run and managed by GW alarmist John Cook, on May 16 is nothing but a hoax. This junk science survey claims that “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible”.

Also, it implies that the man-made global warming theory is becoming more and more implausible due to new climate studies as well as evidence indicating the climate models used by AGW scientists and IPCC ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) global policymakers can’t predict climate. 

Since climate alarmists and junk science activists are known to use appeal to authority to shut down their opponents, this new study, reported by  James Taylor of Forbes, represents a significant nail in the alarmist coffin:

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.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The climate activists must have the honesty to admit that their theory, or new climate religion, must be properly called “catastrophic anthropogenic or man-caused global warming. They should stop confusing the people by using the terms “climate change” and “global warming” interchangeably. There’s a big difference between “climate change”, which is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and “man-caused global warming”.

As John Hinderaker of Powerline argued, the AGW lobbyists and climate activists must consistently argue:

  1. the Earth is warming at an alarming if not unprecedented rate, and will continue to warm significantly in the future;
  2. that warming will have catastrophic consequences;
  3. the warming is caused primarily if not exclusively by human activity;
  4. there are some practical measures that humans can take to prevent future warming from occurring.

It seems that climate and earth scientists are not that stupid and gullible to believe that all of those propositions are true.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Most Geoscientists Reject AGW Theory

  1. the scientists who wrote the organizational science article released a statement PRECISELY TO COMBAT the claims you are making:

    Finally, I see the authors of the paper (who I alerted to the Forbes article’s presence – they clearly were not contacted by Taylor for comment) have response. From their comment:

    First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

    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. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

    Incompetence or deception by Taylor? You tell me. Either way, this is the kind of shoddy, non-academic discourse we get from bogus ideological think tanks like Heartland. They should be embarrassed.

      • thats your response? no retraction? no, i made a mistake furthering this faulty interpretation of this paper?

        i expected more.

      • I’m not supposed to answer a copy-pasta. Unless you can explain why temperature levels for the past 16 years or so did not follow Al Gore’s global warming alarmist rhetoric… 😉

      • thats weird.

        your post is about the journal article you mention above.

        about scientific opinions… why change the topic…

        unless, … you dont want to accept you are wrong. why not? its not even your paper dude. and its not even that important to your overall argument.

        so why not just let it go, and concede the fact?

        thats why this is so weird…

    • Answer to your copy-pasta must also be a copy-pasta…

      While you may have read the paper, did you read the article? I’m not sure where one could find a lie in there. The majority of the article simply quotes the study or paraphrases what the original study said (you would know that if you really HAD read the study, as I did). If you would like to take umbrage with the writer for not saying that the respondents worked in the petroleum industry, that may be the only ‘omission of truth’, but the fact that 36% of them still feel strongly enough about AGW to support ‘Comply With Kyoto’ sort of undermines any argument about workers in the petroleum industry marching in lockstep to the anti-AGW point-of-view. And while I respect the study authors’ statement above about using their data to make generalized statements, it’s very easy to see that Mr. Taylor is not using the data to make statements about scientists in general, he is simply summarizing the findings of the study of these particular respondents. The fact that he doesn’t say,” the scientists in this survey’ every time he references the respondents is perfectly in line with general writing protocol of this nature — that the ‘scientists’ he references are the ones in the survey is assumed as one reads the article. His point at the end is that in this survey we have an example of what happens when you actually ask the scientists what they think, as with the other two surveys he cites in the article. Again, I don’t see where he is trying to extrapolate beyond what is shown in the study. Would you care to pony up some examples of where Mr. Taylor has lied, or are you content to point fingers, then run and hide?

      • ” he is simply summarizing the findings of the study of these particular respondents. ”

        huh? he writes (and u agree) “but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all”

        how will there be “scientific consensus” if you are talking only about particular respondents?

        cmon man, give it up.

      • seriously, why not admit your mistake?

        it wont damage youroverall argument; it was a dumb claim to make anyways. your argument isnt about public opinion by some association of scientists, so why cling to this “consensus” issue?

  2. a couple of observations on your reply, beyond the fact that “consensus” was abused by yourself and taylor:

    1)”If you would like to take umbrage with the writer for not saying that the respondents worked in the petroleum industry, that may be the only ‘omission of truth’, but the fact that 36% of them still feel strongly enough about AGW to support ‘Comply With Kyoto’ sort of undermines any argument about workers in the petroleum industry marching in lockstep to the anti-AGW point-of-view. ”

    that fact that minority (a big one) of geoscientists support AGW completely despite it not in their financial interest to do so speaks to the evidence in AGW’s favor.

    2) even the interpretation by taylor is suspect. again, the authors:

    “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. ”

    we are NOT free to interpret survey results on whatever way we want. there is a good way and there is a wrong way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s