Climate change update...deniers 66% believers 33%

[Obvious Li]

[size=150]Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis[/size]



It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.



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 (also known as earth scientists) 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 authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.



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 next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the "Economic Responsibility" model. These scientists "diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the 'real' cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the 'nature is overwhelming' adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy."



The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the "Regulation Activists" model. These scientists "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Moreover, "They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate."



Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.



One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as "denier" to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as "speaking against climate science" rather than "speaking against asserted climate projections." Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the 'vast right-wing climate denial machine.'



Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.



People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged "consensus" have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

[cc]

The subject matter of Obvious's post / thread is understandable in light of this.



No damned wonder most are skeptical



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html">Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it



The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

This means that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996



The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg">

[cc]

I know, I know. I'm so easy for smooth talkers ... and especially for oil barons

[cc]

That is the method used by the left in ALL areas. Attack with accusations. Failing that, attack more. Failing that, dig up a red herring to divert.



Deal with facts on the table? Not in our lifetime.

[Romero]

The British newspaper the Mail on Sunday and its writer David Rose are notorious for publishing misleading (at best) climate-related articles, as we have discussed previously here, for example.  They have recently struck again, claiming that according to a "quietly released" Met Office report, global warming stopped 16 years ago.  This assertion is entirely fabricated, as the Met Office explained by publishing David Rose's inquiry and the Met Office's responses.



The Met Office also explained that Rose is essentially trying to go down the up escalator (Figure 1) by focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term trend.



"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."



http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif">



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong">//http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

[Laughing Out Loud]

The good old global warming hoax. Brought to us by the infamous Maurice Strong.

[Anonymous]

Nothing brings out fraud and counter-fraud than the whole global warming "crisis". Anyone can find any data they want saying we are all doomed unless we plow more money into that 4 decade old financial sinkhole of wind and solar. If you search a little more you'll also find data showing the climate isn't changing at all. It is so called "climate experts like James Hansen on one side and Richard Lindzen on the other that are the most dishonest con men of them all. Every chart on here is manipulated data, so here is my contribution.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS571EHE581U0oMiljAUggurTsUbM58qJhP_BzkoJoDjE_9gedBFQ">



I accept that the world is warming up a little. I also accept that man made activities have contributed to it. Do I believe climate change is new? Of course not. Do I think even if we cut emissions tomorrow we could halt it let alone reverse it? Maybe, maybe not. Trying to curb carbon emissions is the most assinine thing I have ever heard. Developed countries cheat, so do you really think countries like India and Indonesia will comply?



Global warming may reverse itself and turn into global cooling. Until then I would like to see something done, but in the marketplace not some draconian emission cuts or C02 taxes. It also can't cause unnecessary economic pain for all while a few at the top make a killing. Innovation and adaptation have always been the cornerstone of industrialization. Let's resist the urge to become poorer.