Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models." - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful." - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." - Al Gore, Climate Change activist
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models." - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful." - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." - Al Gore, Climate Change activist
Managing long-term climate risks
Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the worldâs growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate_mgmt.aspx
Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the worldâs growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate_mgmt.aspx
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12...obal-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims â Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
No, I'm good.
He's a journalist. Which gives him just a little more credibility on the topic than say a heat and air installer.
I see the problem. You are such an idiot that you don't even know what a science organization is.
A collection of Canadian petrochemical workers is not a science org nor is it even a credible source of unbiased and accurate information about AGW. That you would continue to bring up this total bullshit "survey" is further proof that you and you moron denier friends have nothing and don't really care about the truth.
The owner of the Weather Channel is a rightwing nut job like you and my degree in Env Sci absolutely DOES give me more credibility.
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 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 Canadaâs most oil-rich province, and the petroleum industry is Albertaâs 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.
- Taylorâs 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.
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.
Additional studies:
Lucrum GWB and jerm Found To Have No Brain........ intentionally use fraudulent information to support their delusion and they are essentially lying pieces of dog shit.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/
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 Canadaâs most oil-rich province, and the petroleum industry is Albertaâs 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.
- Taylorâs 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.
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.
Additional studies:
Lucrum GWB and jerm Found To Have No Brain........ intentionally use fraudulent information to support their delusion and they are essentially lying pieces of dog shit.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/
hey fc you ignorant lying drone... I have been presenting peer reviewed papers and studies from NASA... and quotes from scientists. Even if you are correct and some of those scientists are in the oil gas industry that is not a lie.... your 97% was the biggest lie and it is completely debunked in a peer reviewed paper.
the lies here are coming from you and your side.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...or-math-errors/
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
the lies here are coming from you and your side.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...or-math-errors/
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.