Unbelievable. You keep repeating this bullshit. This was a narrow study of a select group of Canadian petroleum engineers. Will you ever get a clue? Will you ever get some intellectual honesty? At this point, since I've pointed this out to you already, you must considered a liar. The study Taylor references polled members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). Membership in APEGA is a prerequisite to a job with an oil, gas, or mining company, and these jobs dominate its online job board. Alberta, home to the tar sands boom, is Canadaâs most oil-rich province, and the petroleum industry is Albertaâs largest employer of engineers and geoscientists. - The study authors used the APEGA survey as a way to see how extractive industry positions influence scientific views and justifications. They found that people employed by oil and gas companies were much more likely to oppose mainstream climate science. Additionally, the more highly placed in the company, the more vehement the opposition. - 84% of the respondents to the survey were engineers. This designation includes many subspecialties that have nothing to do with climate, for example electrical engineers and pipeline corrosion specialists. - Taylorâs focus on the most concerned category of scientists and engineers is misleading. Another 5% of respondents supported moderate action, and an additional 17% believed that humans were influencing the climate, although they were not sure if action was needed. This means that even among a group made up primarily of oil and gas industry engineers, 58% believed that humans are influencing the climate. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/
FC is so intellectually dishonest that he ignores the other surveys referenced in the Forbes article including those of Meteorologists. He solely focuses in on one survey that he attempts to debunk as being a bunch of Canadian oil engineers when in reality many of the respondents were from outside of Canada. So have you found one single survey yet performed in 2012 or 2013 that shows a majority of scientists surveyed supporting AGW? I thought not!
Christopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer. While not formally trained in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate skeptics, having even been invited to testify to the U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions. For a comprehensive rebuttal of many of Christopher Monckton's arguments, check out this presentation by Professor John Abraham. Abraham has compiled many examples where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites. Check out this PDF of Monckton quotes versus the scientists who in their own words explain how Monckton misrepresents their research. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm So to sum up: The current best arguments that jem and gwb have rely on highly selective and misinterpreted "studies" of Canadian petroleum workers (more than half of whom still believe in AGW anyhow) and a "study" co-written by a shyster and a fraud that is purported to show something that it doesn't. Against NASA, NOAA, The British Met Service, The Japanese Met Service every science org in the world, common sense, the ceo of Exxon and the Weather Channel Maybe jem and gwb are the same person? Can there really be two people in the world who are so similarly clueless?
A study of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Still pushing the same old debunked nonsense, eh. John Cook runs skepticalscience.com, a global warming promotion website that Al Gore's hedge fund, Generation Investment Management LLP, proudly crowed they funded. And it appears, once again, that you don't know the difference between a survey and a study of abstracts. Let's take a look at reality... Cooks â97% consensusâ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/ A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. A tweet in President Obamaâs name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: âNinety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.â [Emphasis added] The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nationsâ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming â95% confidenceâ in the imagined â and, as the new paper shows, imaginary â consensus. ... Climate Consensus and âMisinformationâ: a Rejoinder to âAgnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Changeâ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public. Dr Legates said: âIt is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authorsâ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%. (more at above url)
AGW does not cause ocean acidification... according to scientist who believes AGW is real http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2013/10/ocean-acidification-and-northwest.html With full chemistry information to back up his assertions.
You have been given one. All you can do is deny validity. Yet anything in denial of AGW is magically valid to you. Not true. You have been shown another one . Denying it again or ignoring it, doesn't cange the fact you were given one. A global warming crises is a separate issue. AGW is fact like photosynthesis is fact , like co2 warms the atmosphere is fact. To what extent it will cause 'crises' is another speparate issue. Staking the only home you have on a bet with a lemming that it won't jump off the cliff is not a good wager.