So what is a consensus? A majority? A plurality? A large group? 39%? http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm
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. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, GMoney <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey, why'd you cut off the last line of that first paragraph?? Here, i'll > add it back in for ya: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is > not > > part of the scientific method. > > > > "Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the > scientific method." > > But of course. One study suggests only what one study suggests. It uses the > scientific method. Only multiple studies could reach what is considered a > "consensus", or in the case of global warming, THOUSANDS of studies. > > What i seek is really simple, Sam: A collection of scientific studies who's > results refute the hypothesis that increased rate of change of global > warming today is caused by human activity, that is larger and more > convincing than the same set of studies which support that hypothesis. > > If you can bring that, i'm on board. If you can't, i stick with the > scientists. Pure, simple, no religion involved. If you can't do that, then > I won't demand that you change your position, but i will demand that you > cease accusing my position of being based on "religion"...because I will > have proven otherwise. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:362635 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
