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:
- the Earth is warming at an alarming if not unprecedented rate, and will continue to warm significantly in the future;
- that warming will have catastrophic consequences;
- the warming is caused primarily if not exclusively by human activity;
- 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.