Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus Is A Myth

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Feb 15, 2013.

  1. pspr


    The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they're not even close.

    Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don't.

    But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth's climate to warm.

    This is the finding of the peer-reviewed paper "Science or Science Fiction? Professionals' Discursive Construction of Climate Change" and this group is categorized as the "Comply with Kyoto" cohort.

    Members of this group, not unexpectedly, "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."

    Academics Lianne M. Lefsrud of the University of Alberta and Renate E. Meyer of Vienna University of Economics and Business, and the Copenhagen Business School, came upon that number through a survey of 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists.

    Their work also revealed that 24% "believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the earth" while another 10% consider the "'real' cause of climate change" to be "unknown" and acknowledge that "nature is forever changing and uncontrollable."

    The 10% group, known as the "Economic Responsibility" cohort, expresses "much stronger and more negative emotions than any other group, especially that climate science is a fraud and hoax and that regulation is futile, useless, and impossible."

    The 24% group, tagged as the "Nature is Overwhelming" faction, is the "most likely to speak against climate science as being science fiction, 'manipulated and fraudulent'" and is "least likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled, that IPCC modeling is accurate."

    The researchers also found a group they call the "Fatalists" — the 17% who "diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused," "consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life" and "are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling."

    Lefsrud and Meyer also note that "skepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains" among climate scientists. They mention, as well, that "the proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6%."

    If the alarmists are getting only limited cooperation from man, they are getting even less from nature itself. Arctic sea ice, which sent the green shirts into a lather when it hit a record low in the summer of 2012, has "with a few weeks of growth still to occur ... blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter."

    "This is only the third winter in history," when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.

    At the same time, the Antarctic "is now approaching 450 days of uninterrupted above normal ice area," says the skeptical website Watts Up With That, which, also using University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research data, notes that "the last time the Antarctic sea ice was below normal" was Nov. 22, 2011.

    This is all illuminating information. But it won't get the same media attention given to Al Gore and the usual assortment of eco-radicals, because it violates the narrative that our selfish activities are warming this planet.

    It is consistent, however, with what most people call common sense.
  2. What a crock of shit. Why limit the survey to geoscientists and engineers? That's like asking your plumber and landscaper what's wrong with your car. What a joke. Not to mention geoscientists include the petroleum geologists who are biased to say the least. As if their jobs depended on it.

    And the Arctic gaining ice? Oh but he doesn't say that. He says the gain in WINTER ice, which means shit when the gain is from a record low summer ice. Overall the Arctic ice is disappearing rapidly and for this POS author to suggest otherwise is absolute proof of an agenda of disinformation and deceptive fraud. Of course, he doesn't say that exactly but the average reader will read it as that.

    The fact is that among the best experts the consensus is around 97%.

    But the beauty of it is that one can think for themselves. CO2 is up 35% and it's a greenhouse gas. It's really all one needs plus a little logic.

    The article stinks like something that would be paid for by the Koch Bros. Definitely agenda and not science driven.
  3. gwb-trading


    At least the geoscientists and engineers have science related degrees. It is becoming clear that many of FC's beloved 'climatologists' don't even have science related degrees and are self-declared experts.

    This reminds me of an earlier posted article on global warming promoters outlining their strategy to belittle anyone who doubts their perspective - Step 1 was to cast aspersions on the credentials of anyone who doubts their viewpoint.

  4. Really? Do have a link for that? I'm pretty sure all of the top climatologists have degrees and most are advanced.

    But another way to look at it is peer reviewed papers published.


    And here is the methodology used....

    Search the Web of Science [WoS: university access required] as follows:

    Step 1
    Search with:
    Topic = "global climate change" (quotation marks essential)
    Publication Year=1991
    Document Type=Article
    Enhanced Science Index only

    On November 10, 2012 this gives 40 results.

    Step 2
    Repeat this search but substitute Topic="global warming". This gives 131 results.

    But some articles will have used both "global warming and "global climate change" and these must be subtracted otherwise they are counted twice.

    Step 3
    Search with Topic="global warming" AND Topic=" global climate change" in the second field. Use Publication Year=1991 and add a field for Articles or refine the search for articles only. This gives 11 results.

    Therefore the total number of unique records for 1991 is 40 + 131 - 11 = 160

    Repeat for each year. Or, one could do the three searches for the entire period, 1991-2012, then combine the searches to remove the double counting.

    Read some combination of titles, abstracts, and entire papers as necessary to judge whether a paper "rejects" human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations.

    The Web of Science also lists the number of times each article has been cited, and much more. At the bottom of the search page, you can export the results to an Excel file.

    Note that some papers that one might expect to find listed were classified as "Review" or "Editorial Material" by WoS. I did not count these.
  5. pspr


    ha ha ha ha. I could have written FC's response myself. The samo samo denials in the face of facts. What a dumbass. He would present the same statment if the entire earth iced over tomorrrow. ha ha ha ha ha :D :D

    Yeah, these researchers are falsifying the data just like yours are: :D

    "This is only the third winter in history," when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.
  6. Lucrum


    futurecurrents is an expert on AGW.

  7. pspr


    I thought he was an expert on his brother's anatomy.
  8. gwb-trading


    Still stuck on your totally discredited pie chart...

    1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
  9. So what do these twits have to say about the danger of NEO's.

    kinda funny that it's in the news after I just mentioned it as a REAL threat last week as opposed to your imaginary one.
    and supposedly I'm the moron denier:D :D

    fyi: Don't get me wrong I'm not predicting the end of the world is coming soon but somewhere out there is something out there with our planets # on it. It's pretty much a 100% gurantee
  10. Yes, NEW ice that grew from record low summer levels. It's like saying someone with 2 dollars got rich when he doubled his money. Don't you get it? Here, maybe a chart will make it more clear. I notice there was none in the bullshit article.

    #10     Feb 15, 2013