School Lunches

[Red Arrow]

Tell me again how the ice is melting and how hot the planet is becoming.

The ice is melting and the planet is becoming warmer.

[Conan71]

One outlier like the Dr. that said ulcers were caused by bacteria.

Main difference is politicians never figured out a way to gain power and money over ulcers.  Am I right?

[Red Arrow]

Main difference is politicians never figured out a way to gain power and money over ulcers.  Am I right?

Good chance you are.

[guido911]

Keep busting out the graphs. I'll keep opening up my window.

[swake]

Keep busting out the graphs. I'll keep opening up my window.

When it comes down to it, you just really aren't very bright, are you?

Is that why you are belligerent so often, trying to mask your lack of understanding of even basic issues?

[swake]

Main difference is politicians never figured out a way to gain power and money over ulcers.  Am I right?

Yes, there's very big money to be had for denying the science behind global warming. Hundreds of millions of dollars from secretive right wing groups and the energy industry.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Your ideas on global warming have been paid for, generously so, by Koch and Exxon.

[guido911]

When it comes down to it, you just really aren't very bright, are you?

Is that why you are belligerent so often, trying to mask your lack of understanding of even basic issues?

Not at all. I am wearing a graph right now because its chilly out. 

[Red Arrow]

Yes, there's very big money to be had for denying the science behind global warming. Hundreds of millions of dollars from secretive right wing groups and the energy industry.

I believe it would be equally difficult to prove that the proponents of Global Warming / Climate Change have not benefited financially.

[Conan71]

Yes, there's very big money to be had for denying the science behind global warming. Hundreds of millions of dollars from secretive right wing groups and the energy industry.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Your ideas on global warming have been paid for, generously so, by Koch and Exxon.

Pretty lame even by your standards.  Your ideals on climatology have been paid for by Soros, Gore, and Co.  All people who have set themselves up to profit from exaggerating the impact and sources of climatological cycles.  Nice meme you keep posting but it's not even close to accurate.  

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
Comment Now Follow Comments

The global warming icon for the ubx.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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.

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 (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) 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 authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

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."


Another group of scientists fit the "Fatalists" model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, "diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. 'Fatalists' consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling." These scientists are likely to ask, "How can anyone take action if research is biased?"

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the "Economic Responsibility" model. These scientists "diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the 'real' cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the 'nature is overwhelming' adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy."

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the "Regulation Activists" model. These scientists "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Moreover, "They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate."

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.


One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as "denier" to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as "speaking against climate science" rather than "speaking against asserted climate projections." Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the 'vast right-wing climate denial machine.'

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged "consensus" have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, 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.

[ZYX]

I believe the graph Swake posted only looked at the papers written and peer reviewed by climate scientists. I'm not sure why anyone would place high value on the opinions of geoscientists and engineers concerning climate change.

[Hoss]

I believe the graph Swake posted only looked at the papers written and peer reviewed by climate scientists. I'm not sure why anyone would place high value on the opinions of geoscientists and engineers concerning climate change.

Maybe because they're the only scientists that the petroleum companies could buy...errr.....get to represent them?

[Red Arrow]

I believe the graph Swake posted only looked at the papers written and peer reviewed by climate scientists. I'm not sure why anyone would place high value on the opinions of geoscientists and engineers concerning climate change.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

Are you dismissing the meteorologists too?

The (in)accuracy of the computer models used by the so-called climate scientists is another factor to include outside eyes.

[ZYX]

I don't necessarily dismiss the opinions of the meteorologists, however the study of weather and climate are separate. A climate scientist likely can't predict tomorrow's weather, nor can a meteorologist predict the next century's climate.

[Red Arrow]

I don't necessarily dismiss the opinions of the meteorologists, however the study of weather and climate are separate. A climate scientist likely can't predict tomorrow's weather, nor can a meteorologist predict the next century's climate.

I understand the difference.

I don't believe the climatologists can predict the next century's climate either.
They can't even show past climate from the data preceding it using their computer models.

[swake]

Pretty lame even by your standards.  Your ideals on climatology have been paid for by Soros, Gore, and Co.  All people who have set themselves up to profit from exaggerating the impact and sources of climatological cycles.  Nice meme you keep posting but it's not even close to accurate.  

Interesting quote you have there. It's an excellent example of what I am talking about.


First off, it's from a paid mouthpiece of the Energy Industry. The author is lawyer James Taylor who is a fellow with the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute used to be a mouthpiece of Phillip Morris fighting the science about the dangers of smoking, but lately they have moved on to fighting climate science with funding from Koch and Exxon among others.

Second, it's a complete lie. The author is grossly misrepresenting a sociological study of geologists, engineers and other professionals that work in the energy industry. It's a study about how their opinions on climate science vary so strongly from the settled science and why. It is not a poll of climate scientists. It's an excellent example of his outright lying to the public.

This is how doubt is created in the public when there is none in scientific community. It's an excellent example of how YOUR opinion is based on a lie paid for by big energy.