Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis


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-reviewedOrganization 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.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

I am sure everyone has seen Obama and his followers claim everyone agrees with their views but reality has a way of showing their assertions are wrong.


Again, Sam; if you repeat a lie often enough, the progressive liberal truly believes it becomes truth.


>“of geoscientists and engineers

Why the heck are they asking engineers?

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.

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.

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.

Note that they also combine people who believe both nature and humans cause global warming with their “majority” that reject human-only climate change, so in short the title of the article is sensationalist, and I have doubts that you actually read it if you missed this stuff. Did you just see the title and rush to post it?

He also fails to mention that the survey was conducted from the Alberta APEGA, which is associated with the petroleum industry, so this is like interviewing tobacco companies on the dangers of smoking. Why not interview scientists from a range of institutions? Obviously because there’s an agenda.


1,077? Sounds like a majority of scientists in the world…

Whoo Forbes, go journalistic excellence


Geeeez, not this again. I thought we put this to bed a while back. Why perpetuate this when all it does is bring up the same old arguments, the same old conclusions, and the same players, some extreme and some just plain absurd. Let it die and move on to more productive pursuits.


Because Trekky and these progressives have an itch they can’t scratch. THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING! there is a dynamic earth cyclic movement going on since earth was created.


Oh, but don’t you know? Earth wasn’t created; it just “happened.”


And yet Forbes has to stoop to sensationalist titles and restrict themselves to petroleum engineers to get the headline they want? If you want to say there’s no consensus, you have to actually be honest when you conduct and release the survey.


Are we now going to use consensus to argue against global warming after spending 10 years arguing that in science, consensus is meaningless?


Are you a scientist?


Are you?


No but I tend to put more stock in experts. And you’re not an expert.


WHAT EXPERTS?, I asked this on a number of occasions, define the Haline/Saline belt, Son as an Architect I have to understand a variety of EPA issues especially those regarding the LEED programs [much of which, I may add, is bogus] When you let your mind begin to understand the dynamics of the planet and less of mans feeble attempt to control it, you will understand global warming.


Experts being people who study the climate full time and, ideally, have contributed to discovery and innovation in that area. Not just someone who has a passing knowledge. Architects aren’t experts on the climate.


[quote=“Trekky0623, post:14, topic:38289”]
Experts being people who study the climate full time and, ideally, have contributed to discovery and innovation in that area. Not just someone who has a passing knowledge. Architects aren’t experts on the climate.
[/quote]I would say he has a better understanding of the climate than you do since he has to figure it in when he plans Architectural projects. Once again proving that your knowledge is lacking on another subject you claim knowledge of.


I’ve explained the haline/saline belt. It’s something I learned in like 8th grade. That’s great that you have an understanding of EPA guidelines.


His knowing of how to build climate adapted buildings is about as valid as me knowing how to dress for weather in each season of the year.


But the argument wasn’t whether I had more climate knowledge. The argument was that he’s not a scientist. You al decided to take that as open game to compare me to him. Classic move. It’s ad hominem or whatever you debaters say.


and BOP YOU did NOT learn about the belt in the 8th grade. The EPA scientists have been proven to have been in the tank. Please don’t tax the intelligence of the good folk here with Bovine end results.
I do have to know certain things of heat/cold cycles, 10 year and 100 year flood cycles, Solar and Ultraviolet rediation, and LEED requires me to have basic knowledge of recycling, the nature of materials, ground pollution, air pollution, wind movements, earthquakes or ground sciences. Anything else you need?


Yeah, a peer reviewed article written by you discussing the climate change.

And yeah I did learn basic info about the belts by the 8th grade. My teachers just weren’t pretentious enough to call it “haline/saline” instead they taught us about it and used the words currents and “ocean conveyor belt”

Once again glad to hear you have basic knowledge on the environment. Good deal.