PDA

View Full Version : Geoscientists overwhelmingly reject man made global warming/climate change



Cletus
12-31-2015, 06:41 PM
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 (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims) and here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/)) 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.”

Read the whole article HERE (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/most-geoscientists-reject-global-warming-theory.php)

Peter1469
12-31-2015, 07:16 PM
Physicists and astrophysicists also agree. Many hard scientists don't even consider climate science to be a hard science since they can't do reproducible experiments.

Crepitus
12-31-2015, 08:13 PM
Geoscientists are often involved in interpreting geophysical, geochemical and geological data to develop models of the subsurface of the earth, with the aim of discovering commercially viable and exploitable reserves of natural resources, such as oil, gas, minerals and water.


Can you say "conflict of interest" kids?

Good, I knew that you could!

Peter1469
12-31-2015, 08:39 PM
Living off grant money is a conflict of interest as well.

Green Arrow
12-31-2015, 09:06 PM
I agree that "man made" climate change is rather silly and quite arrogant, but climate change itself is a legitimate thing.

Peter1469
12-31-2015, 09:09 PM
I agree that "man made" climate change is rather silly and quite arrogant, but climate change itself is a legitimate thing.

The climate has never not been changing since the earth formed.

HoneyBadger
12-31-2015, 09:09 PM
Geoscientists are often involved in interpreting geophysical, geochemical and geological data to develop models of the subsurface of the earth, with the aim of discovering commercially viable and exploitable reserves of natural resources, such as oil, gas, minerals and water.


Can you say "conflict of interest" kids?

Good, I knew that you could!

And guess what? They use actual evidence based science!

When all of your models fail repeatedly, it's time to reconsider if your chosen field of "climatology" is actually science or an ideological belief system.

Green Arrow
12-31-2015, 09:38 PM
The climate has never not been changing since the earth formed.

Yes, obviously. That's not what "climate change" refers to. It refers to the more cataclysmic changes like a new ice age, for example.

Crepitus
12-31-2015, 09:39 PM
Living off grant money is a conflict of interest as well.

How many climatologists actually live on grant money?

Why does almost everyone except american republicans believe AGW is real?

Why do all the scientists who deny it seem to have major conflicts of interest?


Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry)

Captain Obvious
12-31-2015, 10:05 PM
How many climatologists actually live on grant money?

Why does almost everyone except american republicans believe AGW is real?

Why do all the scientists who deny it seem to have major conflicts of interest?


Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry)



Yeah, I agree. That grant money theory is kind of bunk.

So cancer researchers who's work is funded by grant monies are full of shit too? Where's the GOP fauxrage with them, lol.

And you nailed it, the wingosphere is the only global segment who hard-line denies climate change. That and a couple of big oil funded shills. That alone should be an eye-opener.

HoneyBadger
12-31-2015, 10:18 PM
How many climatologists actually live on grant money?

Why does almost everyone except american republicans believe AGW is real?

Why do all the scientists who deny it seem to have major conflicts of interest?


Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry)



Do you know how incredibly difficult it is to achieve parity in funding if you are a scientist who actually has an open mind and wants to follow where concrete evidence leads? The Fed and Progressive special interest groups heavily fund those scientists who toe the party line. If you step off the reservation, you lose grants and your so-called "peers" will savage you. The AGW crowd isn't a scientific organization, it operates like a personality cult.

As for why "almost everyone except republicans" believes in global warming, you already answered your question with the word "belief". It's a belief system, not a fact based system thus it is more likely to be favored by those of the left wing persuasion who have never, in history, been deterred by little inconveniences like actual facts.

Captain Obvious
12-31-2015, 10:26 PM
Propaganda is a funny thing

Peter1469
12-31-2015, 11:32 PM
How many climatologists actually live on grant money?

Why does almost everyone except american republicans believe AGW is real?

Why do all the scientists who deny it seem to have major conflicts of interest?


Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry)



Most of the climate scientists live off grant money.

And man-made global warning isn't a big hit outside of the West. Russia scientists said it was junk science from the start.

Captain Obvious
12-31-2015, 11:42 PM
Most of the climate scientists live off grant money.

And man-made global warning isn't a big hit outside of the West. Russia scientists said it was junk science from the start.

I'm not sure I can put stock in Russian science given an oppressive communist regime influence. Same for China.

Crepitus
12-31-2015, 11:47 PM
Do you know how incredibly difficult it is to achieve parity in funding if you are a scientist who actually has an open mind and wants to follow where concrete evidence leads? The Fed and Progressive special interest groups heavily fund those scientists who toe the party line. If you step off the reservation, you lose grants and your so-called "peers" will savage you. The AGW crowd isn't a scientific organization, it operates like a personality cult.

As for why "almost everyone except republicans" believes in global warming, you already answered your question with the word "belief". It's a belief system, not a fact based system thus it is more likely to be favored by those of the left wing persuasion who have never, in history, been deterred by little inconveniences like actual facts.
Who is pouring out all of this funding? How many climatologists are actually depending on this for a living?

Don't you think someone is funding the deniers as well? wouldn't that encourage them to suppress findings that support the AGW theories?

Heard all the RNC talking points before thanks.

Crepitus
12-31-2015, 11:49 PM
Most of the climate scientists live off grant money.

And man-made global warning isn't a big hit outside of the West. Russia scientists said it was junk science from the start.
Concrete numbers please?

You're gonna put more faith in the Russians than our own?

Captain Obvious
12-31-2015, 11:50 PM
Who is pouring out all of this funding? How many climatologists are actually depending on this for a living?

Don't you think someone is funding the deniers as well? wouldn't that encourage them to suppress findings that support the AGW theories?

Heard all the RNC talking points before thanks.

Big oil spends tons of money in denier propaganda.

Tons, admittedly too.

That's the funny part.

Peter1469
01-01-2016, 12:05 AM
Scientific skepticism not only is absent in the man-made climate disaster debate, but is punished.

Anyway, we just fixed all of our warming problems with the Paris deal. We are safe now. So we can move on to real pollution issues.

AeonPax
01-01-2016, 06:51 AM
`
`
"Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases." - Source (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm)