It is peer-reviewed so it must be true

The warmists out there always claim that their science is better than anyone else’s because they have had peer-reviewed papers published.

Well here is a peer reviewed paper that will rip their undies:

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.

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. 

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

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. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

  • Mr_Blobby

    This will go down in history as the big Carbon TAX scam.

    • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

      And our Government(s) bought into it…

      • Callum

        The main reason we have an ETS is actually trade protection (same for Oz). It prevents other countries using the lack of one as a trade barrier.

  • TomTom

    Lol. Looked at the two “surveys” of meteorologists. Look at the study design and questions. Meteorologists who also happen to be weather presenters on American telly?
    It seems designed to exclude meteorologists outside the States where global warming as a concept is far less politically controversial, and more importantly, excludes meteorologists who engages in full time research and haven’t got time to piss about in front of the camera. I would like to see a study of all meteorologists, thanks.

    And then you look at the questions asked – detail in the devil here:

    Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the
    warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
    Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”
    Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are
    reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”
    Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”

    In other words, 55 percent of them don’t think that global warming is a scam, and 20 percent believe that current models are bang on good predictors of what is happening.

    • Jimmie

      Umm no offense Tomtom but I think you cant count.

      Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”

      This means that 55% agree with the statement not disagree – have a careful read.

      • TomTom

        Yeah, you’re right sorry. My bad. So 45% of them disagree with this notion that global warming is a scam.

        I did have a further look into this journal, and find several weird points – Why would a journal (Organization Journals) that specialises in the “understanding of organizations” publish something on so unrelated as climate science? This journal is also ranked 33rd out of 168 journals in this particlular (useless) area by Thomson Reuters. Further, this particular piece was written by someone in Edmonton, Alberta and co authored by someone in Denmark and talks about Americans in particular, no one else at all – pretty weird.

        Further I’ve just realised that the forbes article states that geoscientists are earth scientists which is not the same as being qualified as a climate scientist/meteorologist, and I certainly wouldn’t ask an engineer for his/her opinion on climate science, given that that has nothing to do at all with their job/training description. (plus I’ve had at least 3 try and tell me that creationism was totally awesome and correct.)
        It’s akin to asking an engineer to conduct a legal land survey and a surveyor to design a tower block for me when it should be the other way round.

      • Bunswalla

        And also there will be many of the 45% that disagreed with the strongly worded statement that it was a scam, who don’t think it’s necessarily a scam but they don’t think the climate change scientists are correct.

        Just because they don’t believe there’s an orchestrated conspiracy behind it, doesn’t mean they agree with what the climate-change promoters are saying.

  • PlanetOrphan

    According to my observations, the core of Earth is in a cooling cycle at the mo.
    Maybe even mitigating the Global Warming from Co2.
    Based on the Fact that the Earths’ rotation has increased in speed recently.

  • Hazards001

    “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.”

    And of course if it is a serious problem..well then it’s still bloody nature and taxing it isn’t going to make a rats bums worth of difference.

    • Hazards001

      Climate change theory is the biggest load of wank since the Y2K rip off..and pretty much being perpetrated by the same type of people..self interested money grubbing cocktards!

  • Lopsy

    The link between dangerous temp increases and CO2 is not proven, nowhere, nada. Which is why so many sensible scientists are loath to support this bullshit. Science is the last hurdle of the left, the one they’ll never be able to overcome. You can bullshit some people some of the time…..

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeremy-David-Thomson/1404770597 Jeremy David Thomson

    I’m about a quarter of the way through the actual paper http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

    The paper seems explore petroleum industry engineers and scientists that have formed a idea ‘frame’ antagonistic to AGW.

    “To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others.”

    The survey was conducted by the APEGA the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. The vast majority of its members work in the Alberta tar-sands petroleum industry. I find remarkable that in a self-selected group (40,000 members 1077 responded) 36% of Oil Industry engineers and scientist do accept AGW.

32%