UPDATED: About That Global Warming Consensus

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

Obviously, a survey does not an argument make, but this is an interesting tidbit that one might expect to be getting more attention if the news media were truly on a politically neutral search for truth and compelling stories [see update for an important note]:

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.

I’ve wondered if such things as the rush to a non-binding agreement in Paris and Rhode Island Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s enthusiasm for prosecuting political opponents indicate that those who wish to use “climate change” as justification for sweeping away freedom see their window closing.  Perhaps in part because real and immediate threats are arising for contrast (such as terrorism and the rising wave of refugee invaders throughout Europe), the spell whereby environmentalists have silenced skeptics appears to be wearing off.

UPDATE (1/3/16 12:38 p.m.)

A reader points out that the first link above points to an article from 2013, which I’d missed.  Obviously, that removes the oddity of the news media’s not following the story now (although not back then).  However, the chronology actually contributes to the possibility that the alarmists have been making a push because they sense the window closing.



  • Fair and Balanced

    I love posting the link to a three year old story. I’ll give you credit, you finally found one. Now for some background:

    “The survey the author cites isn’t “scientists” as stated in the title of
    the op-ed, it is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers,
    Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. That’s like surveying tobacco
    company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking. It would be a reasonable
    piece about the opinion of petroleum engineers in Alberta if that was
    made clear, instead that was hidden. I wonder why?”

    What will your reason be for not posing this, Justin?

    • OceanStateCurrent

      Thank you for pointing out my error.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      Fair and Balanced: Could you offer a recognized definition of acceptable credentials to be a :”Climate Scientist”. It seems to me that it is like being an “Environmentalist”, you just claim the title. For instance James Hansen, always referred to as the “NASA Climate Scientist” is a physicist.

      • I didn’t use “Denier”

        Rhett, keep in mind that it’s not about you trying to pigeonhole someone or nitpick credentials of what a “Climate Scientist” is, it’s about facts. This isn’t an election either where the one with the most votes wins. Here’s some resources for those of you that are “skeptical” about what the facts are:

        http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

        http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/climate-change-facts-versus-opinions/

        http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

        I’ll even throw this one in for those inclined:

        https://catholicclimatemovement.global/climate-change-facts/

        • Mike678

          Really? Gov’t researchers directed by the Obama administration? These are the people we should trust? Unbiased like the IRS and the Justice Dept? Perhaps a better site:

          http://www.climatedepot.com/

          • OK, I’ll use skeptic

            Mike, that looks legit. I found some “facts” right near the ads for ”
            Hurry Before This Video Gets Banned

            and

            In all seriousness, are you aware that the EPA and NASA existed before the Obama administration?

          • Mike678

            Your point? That Climate Depot isn’t funded by big oil or our tax dollars? Does that make all the information on the site invalid? Only if you judge the message by the messenger–and that is shallow indeed.

            In all seriousness, what does the age of NASA or the EPA have to do with the current orders/direction from the Obama Administration? I reference a fairly recent speech by the Pres where he said that even the DoD recognizes that climate change (wasn’t it Global Warming a few years ago?) is a threat. No mention, of course, of his administration’s direction to DoD that they take it as a threat…

          • Rhett Hardwick

            Mike, I have always been troubled by the seeming need to establish “facts” in isolation. For instance proclaiming that “arctic ice is melting” without noting that it is only in a small area and that larger portions of the ice in the arctic are growing. Last year we had near record cold, that was dismissed because it concerned less than 1% of the Earth’s surface and was insignificant. This year’s “heat wave” covers approximately the same area and is somehow significant.The simple “fact” is that the earth warms and cools, it’s nature.

Quantcast