• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another myth bites the dust

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No not the AGW myth, the myth that "all the scientist believe in AGW".

"Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"
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.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes



More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]


SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,944
Reaction score
9,015
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Even scientist are smart enough to understand when they're being led down a path of ignorance.

This whole thing was based on the pursuit of control and cash. Nothing more.
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,580
Reaction score
31,551
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This whole thing was based on the pursuit of control and cash. Nothing more.
Well, that, and their hope and belief that we hold the fate of the world in our hands. Pretty delusional if you ask me.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are also scientists who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago and who believe that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. Who care about them? They're ****ing morons.

Also, I don't think anybody claims that "all scientists" accept the reality of global warming - most people leave room for ignorant, politically motivated conspiracy theorists as they exist everywhere. What people claim is that the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations, particularly those who study climate patterns, agree that global warming is a fact of reality. This is true.
 

Tetelestai

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
343
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
There are also scientists who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago and who believe that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. Who care about them? They're ****ing morons.

Also, I don't think anybody claims that "all scientists" accept the reality of global warming - most people leave room for ignorant, politically motivated conspiracy theorists as they exist everywhere. What people claim is that the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations, particularly those who study climate patterns, agree that global warming is a fact of reality. This is true.
But they attempt to ostracize/ discredit any scientist who doesn't agree. Which in itself is as anti scientific as fire is hot. Science is about theory, reproducible results and debate. Without debate science loses it's credibility.

My personal opinion is that the "climate change" scare is really environmentalists who care so much about pollution that they invented a crisis (or capitalized on a natural cycle) to effect change that reduces pollution. I agree that we should do everything in our power to safeguard the environment, but not at the point of lying to get there. Then people like Al Gore saw an opportunity to make a LOT of money by promoting it and governments saw an opportunity to gain more power through it... especially the UN.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are also scientists who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago and who believe that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. Who care about them? They're ****ing morons.

Also, I don't think anybody claims that "all scientists" accept the reality of global warming - most people leave room for ignorant, politically motivated conspiracy theorists as they exist everywhere. What people claim is that the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations, particularly those who study climate patterns, agree that global warming is a fact of reality. This is true.
:laughat: typical. anyone who doesn't toe the line and worship at the alter of AGW is either ignorant, politcally motivated or a shill for big oil. :laughat:
 

grip

☚ Mystery Director ☛
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
25,395
Reaction score
9,749
Location
Fl
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually, I don't think there's much debate that global temps are rising but whether humans are responsible for part of it is the question. Almost all ice ages were precipitated by intense warming periods, so the earth typically goes thru climate changes regardless of human involvement, though not usually this fast.

If we're able to pollute the environment, like the air quality, rivers and oceans, including runoff from farming, then I don't think it's a reach to believe we're impacting the weather somewhat. Maybe it's changing naturally and we're merely increasing the effect?

Main problem is I'm not sure if we can realistically make big and quick enough changes to reverse anything? We've barely got our heads above water with enough of the worlds problems without major infrastructure changes.
 

Un biased

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
1,642
Reaction score
522
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Does anyone remember the global cooling crisses
 

Tetelestai

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
343
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Does anyone remember the global cooling crisses
LOL, yes, I do. I was just a kid, but I knew that the assertion was ridiculous.... just like AGW is. Yes, we are getting warmer, but we are still cooler than at the time of Christ. We are not going to die, we will adapt as needed. Then the earth will begin to cool again. OH NO, another crisis!!!!
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But they attempt to ostracize/ discredit any scientist who doesn't agree. Which in itself is as anti scientific as fire is hot. Science is about theory, reproducible results and debate. Without debate science loses it's credibility.

My personal opinion is that the "climate change" scare is really environmentalists who care so much about pollution that they invented a crisis (or capitalized on a natural cycle) to effect change that reduces pollution. I agree that we should do everything in our power to safeguard the environment, but not at the point of lying to get there. Then people like Al Gore saw an opportunity to make a LOT of money by promoting it and governments saw an opportunity to gain more power through it... especially the UN.
Well, scientists who know what they're talking about do tend to ostracize and discredit people who try to pass off horrible science and myth as something of equal quality to credible scientific research, yes. What you are doing is confusing healthy, credible debate with conspiracy theories. It is no more anti-science to ostracize those who deny the reality of global warming than it is anti-science to ostracize those who would have creationism taught alongside evolution.

Right, you believe in a worldwide conspiracy theory perpetuated by environmentalists who somehow got scientists and scientific organizations all over the world to fabricate research and lie about their professional positions so that they could stop pollution. I heard 9/11 was an inside job too.
 

Un biased

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
1,642
Reaction score
522
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
LOL, yes, I do. I was just a kid, but I knew that the assertion was ridiculous.... just like AGW is. Yes, we are getting warmer, but we are still cooler than at the time of Christ. We are not going to die, we will adapt as needed. Then the earth will begin to cool again. OH NO, another crisis!!!!
Almost snowed in April ( and I live in south Jersey ) , but then again the cold temperature did not get that cold just lasted longer > I swear the earth Is Bi polar
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Almost snowed in April ( and I live in south Jersey ) , but then again the cold temperature did not get that cold just lasted longer > I swear the earth Is Bi polar
what I have noticed here in north Alabama is that it doesn't get cold for as long in the winter (although the time it is cold it is colder than before) and even though the time it is hot is longer, it doesn't get as hot as before.

The actual temperature "range" has shifted downward to being colder, it just stays warmer longer. this causes the "average" temperature to be higher.
 

gslack

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I had a couple people try and tell me that two heat sources in a perfect vacum and ambient temperature of absolute zero, facing one another, both at 150 degrees Fahrenheit will heat each other beyond their 150 degree temperature. That's the problem with this whole theory in a nutshell. The fact they are equal in temperature and therefore in equilibrium with one another meaning no energy gain by either source was somehow beyond their ability to realize. The reason is they have been told by people they trust that it isn't correct. Science tells them it's not so, life experience tells them it's not so, yet they are positive it's true regardless... They couldn't accept the reality that 150 degrees from two heat sources is still 150 degrees because that would mean the only heating of the planet comes from internal temperature and the sun and not from a trace gas. They would rather deny science than deny their politicians and rock stars playing scientist..

It was ridiculous, they spent days coming back with new reasons and twisted logic trying to convince me that I was wrong. I felt sorry for them really...They weren't dumb people, just misled by those they trusted..
 

Un biased

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
1,642
Reaction score
522
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
what I have noticed here in north Alabama is that it doesn't get cold for as long in the winter (although the time it is cold it is colder than before) and even though the time it is hot is longer, it doesn't get as hot as before.

The actual temperature "range" has shifted downward to being colder, it just stays warmer longer. this causes the "average" temperature to be higher.
The temperature seems to even out The winter is not as cold but last longer the summer is not as hot ( well sometimes it is ) I notice the same thing Yeasterday Its was with the wind felt like the temperature is 36 , today its 77
 

Tetelestai

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
343
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, scientists who know what they're talking about do tend to ostracize and discredit people who try to pass off horrible science and myth as something of equal quality to credible scientific research, yes. What you are doing is confusing healthy, credible debate with conspiracy theories. It is no more anti-science to ostracize those who deny the reality of global warming than it is anti-science to ostracize those who would have creationism taught alongside evolution.

Right, you believe in a worldwide conspiracy theory perpetuated by environmentalists who somehow got scientists and scientific organizations all over the world to fabricate research and lie about their professional positions so that they could stop pollution. I heard 9/11 was an inside job too.
But most scientists actually dispute AGW, so the fringe group is the proponents of AGW. The earth has been a lot warmer in the past than it is today. That's why they are finding human settlements where there was once ice. Until evidence is produced that we are hotter that EVER before, it is only theory. And tell me this... Actual record keeping was only started on a large scale in 1880. How can you base any reasonable theory that we are causing this massive problem on a 133 years or records when the earth is so old?
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
But most scientists actually dispute AGW, so the fringe group is the proponents of AGW.
Link?

Tetelestai said:
The earth has been a lot warmer in the past than it is today. That's why they are finding human settlements where there was once ice.
Generally False.
The last time the earth was "alot warmer" there weren't humans.

tetelestai said:
Until evidence is produced that we are hotter that EVER before, it is only theory. And tell me this... Actual record keeping was only started on a large scale in 1880. How can you base any reasonable theory that we are causing this massive problem on a 133 years or records when the earth is so old?
Quite easily, Core samples of [remaining] ice, pollen types, plant fossils, previous sea level digs, etc.
In fact, YOU just said the earth used to be alot warmer while in the next sentence claiming we couldn't measure it before 1880. Great stuff.

This whole string and section is now Polluted/a Majority Right Wing political apparachiks with No science, just politics.
 
Last edited:

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections:

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10]

Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11]

Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12]

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13]

Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14]


Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes:

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[15]Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]

Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]

William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]

William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]

Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]

Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]

Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]

Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]


Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown:

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]

Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]

Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]

Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]

Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49]
just a partial list of all the "ignorant, politically motivated shills for BIG OIL" that disagree with the "consensus" on AGW

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Tetelestai

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
343
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Link?

Welcome to Forbes

Generally False.
The last time the earth was "alot warmer" there weren't humans.

This is irrelevant as they are finding human settlement where there was ice for centuries. That means that the earth was warmer at one point, and we are all still here. Also consider that the earth is here even though it was a lot warmer before man was here. We also don't know how this will ultimately affect man, and we don't have any conclusive proof that man is causing anything.

Quite easily, Core samples of [remaining] ice, pollen types, plant fossils, previous sea level digs, etc.
In fact, YOU just said the earth used to be alot warmer while in the next sentence claiming we couldn't measure it before 1880. Great stuff.

This whole section is now Polluted/a Majority Right Wing political apparachiks with No science, just politics.
Yes, core samples can shed SOME light on what was going on, but it can't say anything conclusively. I wouldn't even consider putting the worlds people under the kind of tyranny that the UN wants to for a theory. When the theory becomes supportable fact with conclusive proof, I will support forced compliance and massive taxation to try and compensate, but not until then!

Now, since you have asked for proof... where's yours? I would say that you are at the very least, just as biased in your opinion as I am. A left wing hut case who thinks government should tell everybody what to think, how to live, what to eat, how many babies you should have and tax everybody to death to pay for it.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
18,384
Reaction score
11,964
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Unsurprisingly, James Taylor misrepresented or did not understand the study in his Forbes blog post.

The authors responded directly to the Forbes article:

Dear Mr. Taylor -

Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.

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.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.

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

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

On a side note, pretty much every other survey of scientific opinion has put belief in human-caused global warming in the 80-90% range.

I know it's hard when the facts are not on your side, but: Please stop clutching at straws.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
33,455
Reaction score
22,261
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
just a partial list of all the "ignorant, politically motivated shills for BIG OIL" that disagree with the "consensus" on AGW

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's difficult to accept an expert on dowsing (finding stuff by holding a twig and thinking about it.) as any kind of credible scientist. There is no climate related science body on the planet which denies the fact of AGW.
 

gslack

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
just a partial list of all the "ignorant, politically motivated shills for BIG OIL" that disagree with the "consensus" on AGW

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'd call it a partial list of scientists with the guts to speak up..

BTW that list is nonsense. Roy Spencer is what is called a "luke-warmer" he agrees with AGW theory even tries to prove it using very un-scientific thought experiments on his website. he just doesn't agree with the alarmist nonsense. Like sea levels rising 35 feet and crazy lies like that. After all he and a few others helped write the studies for the IPCC panel..

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change... A political body not a scientific one...
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Unsurprisingly, James Taylor misrepresented or did not understand the study in his Forbes blog post.

The authors responded directly to the Forbes article:

Dear Mr. Taylor -

Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.

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.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.

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

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

On a side note, pretty much every other survey of scientific opinion has put belief in human-caused global warming in the 80-90% range.

I know it's hard when the facts are not on your side, but: Please stop clutching at straws.
Talk about clutching for straws :lol:.The authors of the study and you are doing just that. What is obvious is that most scientist believe man has some effect on the weather but the very fact that they reject the Kyoto protocol proves they reject the AGW theory. You and the authors are clutching at straws by lowering the bar as to what it is to believe in AGW. If you think man plays a small role in weather but reject Kyoto, reject changing our way of life to stop global warming you are not a warmer and are not an AGW believer.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
43,525
Reaction score
12,718
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I miss Global Warming. The temperatures and climate in my area have returned to what I remember 30 years ago or so.

Think it might be natural climatic changes?

Again, I miss Global Warming.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,571
Reaction score
3,984
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On a side note, pretty much every other survey of scientific opinion has put belief in human-caused global warming in the 80-90% range.
Apart from the one dodgy 2009 97% Doran Zimmermann poll what 'other' surveys are you talking about ?
 
Top Bottom