ARTICLE
MartiK Just because scientists can't prove something doesn't mean there's no validity in it. It just means you can't set up a controlled experiment that shows cause and effect. Scientists can't prove that smoking causes cancer but I think we all agree there's a definite relationship. Global warming is occurring. The question is how much of it is caused by human activity and what we could actually do about it other than wipe out half of the world's population.
1 · December 11 at 10:38pm
GeorgetteP One of the most foolish articles I have read lately
Yesterday at 4:51am
JohnH When scientists can't prove something it's known as a theory and subject to debate and discussion. In this case we have so-called scientists, who have been caught conspiring to cook the data, insisting that their theory is beyond discussion and attempting, with the help of the media, to ostracize anyone who expresses doubt about their theory. The bottom line is, if they had enough valid data with which to argue in support of their theory, they wouldn't need to silence anyone who questioned their theory. Liberals corrupt science just as they corrupt everything else. This is fake science being promulgated with the help of fake news.
2 · Yesterday at 7:34am
JohnH BTW... there's a reason why they had to start calling their theory "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming."
3 · Yesterday at 8:11am
JoeM Do a little research on your source's sources. Allen B. West is definitely not beyond mis-representing scientific studies.
In a Forbes op-ed, James Taylor takes a study that prominently reveals the anti-science influence of oil and gas companies, and spins it to suggest that serious, substantive disagreement exists among relevant scientists on climate change. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the very study he cites, as well as numerous other studies that have surveyed climate scientists.
The following is a guest post by Climate Nexus (in PDF format here):
JAMES TAYLOR MISINTERPRETS STUDY BY 180 DEGREES
In a Forbes op-ed, James Taylor takes a study that prominently reveals the anti-science influence of oil and gas companies, and spins it to suggest that serious, substantive disagreement exists among relevant scientists on climate change. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the very study he cites, as well as numerous other studies that have surveyed climate scientists.
The claim:
Taylor references a new study that surveyed Canadian engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta. He attaches the headline, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis.” The study divides respondents into 5 groups, and Taylor highlights the fact that only 36% of scientists fell into the category most supportive of climate action. He concludes, “…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.”
The context:
– 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 Canada’s most oil-rich province, and the petroleum industry is Alberta’s 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.
– Taylor’s 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.
Additional studies:
– A recent literature review found that out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate science studies since 1991, only 24 reject human-caused global warming.
– A peer-reviewed survey of 1,372 actively publishing climate researchers found that 97% of them uphold the existence of human-caused global warming.
– Another peer-reviewed survey of 10,257 earth scientists from a variety of disciplines also found 97% agreement among actively publishing climate scientists, and almost 90% agreement among all actively publishing earth scientists that humans are causing global warming.
Climate Nexus Lesfrund-Meyer graph
Conclusion:
The APEGA survey is noteworthy for its exposure of the disparity between the views of engineers and geoscientists employed by petroleum companies, vs. the rest of the community of actively publishing climate and earth scientists. Denialism increased still further among the top-level oil and gas engineers. Although the cause behind this trend is unclear, it shows at the very least a correlation between ties to oil and gas and climate denial views. In no way does it undermine the strong agreement among publishing scientists that human-caused global warming is real and a problem.
* * *
Also see Heartland Institute’s James Taylor falsely claims a new study rejects climate consensus [Updated], by Bryan Angliss at Scholars and Rogues, which leads with:
James Taylor, managing editor of The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, recently wrote a Forbes blog post about a new study of professional engineers and geoscientists involved in Alberta, Canada’s petroleum industry. According to the authors of the study, however, Taylor got most of the details in his post wrong, and Taylor has not corrected or retracted the blog post even though his errors have been pointed out to him. Furthermore, Taylor republished his deceptive and dishonest post at The Heartland Institute this morning, three days after the study’s authors corrected Taylor. Taylor has a made a habit of distorting scientific studies in the past – his new blog post is no different. …
Earlier CSW post: James Taylor’s deceptive attempt to discredit National Climate Assessment experts
2 · 15 hrs
JohnB Interesting, Joe, could you expound on that a bit?
2 hrs
JoeM Well, seems pretty obvious to me. If you survey with a fairly small sample, with most of them employed in the oil and gas industry, you will likely get skewed results. But in addition to that, the article doesn't even reflect the true results of the survey. Even with the loaded sample, 58% believed human activity affects climate. That hardly justifies West's title that climate change is finally debunked. Sorry if you didn't have time to read it.
21 mins
Write a reply...
JohnH Doesn't negate the fact that their email servers were hacked several years ago and dozens of global warming scientists at Universities on both sides of the Atlantic were caught redhanded conspiring on how to correct the fact that their data disproved their whole theory. It's BS.
13 hrs
JoeM Doesn't negate the fact that every civilized country has bought into the science. Just a few pockets of denial.
1 · 12 hrs
JohnH Real scientists with solid findings don't argue their theories by pretending that their arguments are beyond dispute and claiming validity based upon how many supposedly agree with them. BS can be pretty powerful and people tend to fall for it at an alarming rate. Hell, look how many people voted for Hillary. Look how many peope fell for the fake science churned out by pollsters to convince people she was invincible. Just because lots of people fall for BS doesn't change the fact that it's BS.
2 hrs
JoeM Real scientists don't take all their samples from employee's of the oil and gas industry, especially when their livelihood could be affected by their opinion.
2 hrs
JohnH No, apparently they fake it all when they discover that their data's been wrong since 1989 LOL. That's what's known as BS ;)
2 hrs
JohnH Livelihood is an interesting aspect and I'm glad you brought it up. Many of your so-called "civilized" countries who buy into this manmade climate BS stand to make a lot of money by convincing Western Europe and North America to shoot themselves in the foot in energy development. Did I mention that hacked emails show a certain oil and gas producing country funding anti-fracking protests and global warming propaganda in the U.S. to cripple us as their competitor?
2 hrs · Edited
JoeM No, you didn't.
45 mins
JohnB http://dailycaller.com/.../about-350-million-in-global.../
About $350 Million In Global Warming Foreign Aid Mysteriously Vanishes
DAILYCALLER.COM
Remove Preview · 1 hr
JoeM Ah, that clears it up! Corruption exists, some people waste money, so therefore,
Climate change must be a hoax.
34 mins
JohnB JoeM WOW!! You finally get it!
27 mins
JohnB TIMELINE: Owl Gore invents the internets, Owl Gore discovers climate change
No comments:
Post a Comment