The “97% of Scientists” Claim is a Lie

_{Barry Arrington
December 31, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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.

Comments

DaveS This place was designed for all types of eventualities. Example..... The oceans are much lager CO2 sinks than previously thought. There are all kinds of contingency and redundant systems in place. Personally I don't think CO2 makes any difrence to the temp. Water vapour is the problem.Andre_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Andre,
DaveS Do you think 7 000 000 000 people are too many for this planet?
No. Not that I know of, anyway. I guess our descendants will be able to answer that question with more certainty. But it's not clear to me why you noted that the Earth is much smaller than the Sun, if you're arguing that no significant human-caused global warming is occurring.daveS_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

DaveS Do you think 7 000 000 000 people are too many for this planet?Andre_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

On this and evolution stuff WHY DO THEY say the scientific community or SCIENTISTS think thus and thus on evolution or global warming?? If its about someone who is a specialist and so knows better then why would specialists in other subjects of science be relevant at all in a specialty of science?? In reality creationists only face a tiny number of specialists who get paid/or did in evolutionary biology or geology. I think its not even tens of thousands. it doesn't pay to pay them. Then also it attracts the b team since kids would think its all been settled and other sciences are open to discovery and reward. How many evo bio's are there? Anyone know? Not biologists but only evo bio's. More then 36??? Why do evolution thumpers invoke the whole armed forces of science as on their side when its only a few brigades of light armed troops. ??Robert Byers_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

professional programmers cringe at the work of non-professionals: I cringe at my own work!Mung_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

WD400: I don’t think you have to have something against Albertan petroleum engineers to know that they aren’t climate scientists. Woo Hoo those climate scientists expert in all things heat flow related, fluid dynamics, geophysics related, oceanography, thermodynamics, solar physics and solar cycles, chemistry, and mid-spectrum electromagnetic radiation. They know how to "correct" the raw data correctly. They KNOW how to tie it all together in uniformly beautiful StarLogo or FORTRAN models so that they work out unanimously and make those models from all over the world agree in their results. They go into the academic programs (if they can find them) knowing the only employer is the U.S. government, a sort of self-selecting ideological group filtering in itself. They know the 'progressive' stance of the European governing bodies, and of the U.N. itself, and of the professors who teach them. They know where their checks must originate, and all those StarLogo models make it all happen, because those models can easily model the atmosphere of a planet, all the oceans, the solar influences, and geophysical influences. Truly brilliant are those that know everything; who can model a whole planet and its solar input, and can use the knowledge to kick butt around the private sectors and the evildoer captains thereof: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/careers.html professional programmers cringe at the work of non-professionals: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/abegel/papers/dagstuhl-enduserscience07.pdfgroovamos_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H, pretty much every sane person (who has utilized basic logic and reason) at this point in time knows that global warming (anthropogenic) is complete nonsense, it's mostly a political scam conjured by the left as a result of a power struggle. I won't get into all the details as to why, but it comes down to shady science and failed predictions as well as historical reference of origin. As a result, climate change policies are destroying businesses by impeding technological progress and killing millions of people in 3rd world countries. The argument about oil companies voicing against global warming is preposterous, that would be a needle in a haystack compared to all the media propaganda coupled with shady statistics (including the 97% consensus stat) being spewed pushing AGW. Happy New Year to all!computerist_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Any argument for a hypothesis based on a consensus is a sign of a serious weakness in the hypothesis. It's a sign of mendacity.Mapou_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

The 97% consensus argument is invalid. Are the 3% who do not support climate change (anthropogenic) wrong? are they not scientists? is the 97% smarter than the 3%? why should we trust the 97% and not the 3%? Secondly, is there a predisposition to enter environmental science? if there is, the 97% consensus argument is invalid. Similarly, if one says 97% of scientists believe in Darwinian evolution explaining all of biology and if 97% of those individuals are initially atheists and enter the field based on their predisposed beliefs, then the statistic is invalid! And it's invalid of course, because one does not question the consensus, but assumes it's true from the onset.computerist_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Andre,
Do you really think 7 000 000 000 people on a planet 1 000 000 times smaller than the sun that has a temp of 27 000 000C have any bearing on the warming of the planet?
Wouldn't the chances of 7 billion humans causing a planet to warm actually be greater on a smaller planet than a large one?daveS_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Mung - nothing really. I hear it can be very nice. Andre - my paternal grandfather was a coal miner. my brother researched recycling coal from coal tips. I certainly don't think they are evil. The only point I was making was that this was a group of people who would be biased to one particular point of view. Even if you think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, I hope you would be able to see that (just as ecologists, for example, will be biased towards the opposite point of view). So to use statistics on the views of geo-engineers from Alberta to say that the 97% statistic (which is about climate scientists) is just a bad idea.Bob O'H_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

What do you have against people who live and work in Alberta?
I don't think you have to have something against Albertan petroleum engineers to know that they aren't climate scientists.wd400_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Bob without saying it also does not like these people that mine and use natural resources because Bob subjectively think they are evil.... Bob I'm going to give you some info.... We are not running out of natural fossil fuels not by a long shot. It is people like you with your lobby groups an greenpeace hippy chums that are keeping countries in Africa poor by imposing your carbon footprint nonsense on them. You are not saving lives you are taking them. And it is hypocritical of you to enjoy the benefits of an economy built on the use of fossil fuels but denying devolving nations those very same benefits.Andre_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
Barry, if you read the actual study, you’ll see that they surveyed professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, i.e. people who mainly worked in the oil industry.
What do you have against people who live and work in Alberta?Mung_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Bob Do you really think 7 000 000 000 people on a planet 1 000 000 times smaller than the sun that has a temp of 27 000 000C have any bearing on the warming of the planet? Why are you guys ignoring Reivelle's own retraction of his work? What is up with that?Andre_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Barry, if you read the actual study, you'll see that they surveyed professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, i.e. people who mainly worked in the oil industry. This is the abstract (my bolding):
This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.
Bob O'H_{December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply