About that global warming “consensus”…it doesn’t exist

Organization Studies has released a peer-reviewed survey of geoscientists and engineers (Forbes, via WUWT) and found the global warming alarmists’ claims of a “consensus” to be way off the mark.

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.

I’ll leave it to the reader to define “strong”, but 51% of those surveyed either believed Nature is the dominant controller of climate (24%) or refused to say the matter is settled one way or another (27%). All of them (plus an additional 5%) have no use for the alarmists’ insistence that disaster awaits without massive carbon regulation.

Cross-posted to RWL


4 thoughts on “About that global warming “consensus”…it doesn’t exist

  1. Doesn’t seem like a very good study. From the Forbes story…
    “the survey was conducted by APEGA, a professional organization of engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta. According to the study you cite:

    “[T]he petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta.”

  2. Consensus in science is an oxymoron. Consensus is about agreeing on matters that are subjective. Science is about objectivity. Understanding what is being observed is in the natural world is not a subjective exercise.

    The scientific method is about disproving hypotheses — not proving them. If an experiment disproves someones theory it only needs to do it once, and the theory is then disproven. The reason people consider the a theory to be valid is because the competing theories have been shot down, and all the experiments testing the theory have not invalidated it … yet.

    Science is not well understood by the general public, and government sponsorship of research is a two edged sword. When your funding is tied to the results you produce — then your results will typically be skewed ensure your funding continues.

Comments are closed.