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

more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#5f8f11684c7c

Here is a link to the study: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

The keyword is anthropogenic, or man-caused. I will be graduating this fall with a bachelor of environmental science with a geoscience concentration. I have participated in an internship at Oak Ridge National Lab as a GIS technician in the environmental science division. My belief is that I would rather err on the side of caution. In other words, we should take it slow with our world. Its the only one we have. Do I believe the polar ice caps are melting and the sea levels are rising? I believe Earth has cycles, and this could be one. But, it is very likely being aggravated by man's actions.

The thing is, whether we agree on AGW or not, we actually have no choice but to recognize the limits of fossil fuels. They are finite, and that's the bottom line. According to government statistics, of the energy the US consumes annually, 67% is just wasted. Some estimates are as high as 85% waste.


https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

Surely we can all agree that this is a major problem. We waste way more than we use. This goes for both energy and food production as well. According to Refed, a non-profit organization that works to reduce food waste in the US, about 62 million tons or $218 billion worth of food gets either discarded or not harvested due to aesthetics (http://www.refed.com/?sort=economic-value-per-ton ). Moreover, how much energy do we waste harvesting food that never gets eaten?

Back when I was in the army we had a question we would ask the young soldiers. Who is responsible for supply economy? They would almost always say the supply sergeant. But that is wrong. Supply economy is everyone's responsibility. Turn off the lights when you leave a room. Don't let the water run while you brush your teeth. Just thinking about waste as a part of your daily routine is a huge step.

There is new technology being developed that will capture waste heat from power plants and big data centers where tremendous amounts of waste heat is lost, which is the equivalent of waste energy. Here is an article discussing it: https://e360.yale.edu/features/waste-heat-innovators-turn-to-an-overlooked-renewable-resource

I know this is a contentious topic, but I want to find common ground and make a difference. Most of us are decent people who want to leave a good legacy for our children and grandchildren. We want to be remembered as good friends and neighbors. It all starts with how we treat our environment. If we leave behind a place where the air makes you sick and the water is unsafe to swim in, what does that say about us as a people?

I could go on and on as I am sure you know. This is my main passion in life. You all know me as the libertarian who advocated for legalization of cannabis, but that is secondary to protection of our natural world. If you believe in God and that he gave man dominion over all things, then shouldn't we be good stewards? No matter what you believe in, shouldn't we want to live in a clean and healthy world?

Let's all agree on something here! What do you say?

 

We have enough fossil fuels to last for 1000 years, that's not a problem.

The only problem is pollution which is different from AGW.

But if you don't think energy companies are looking for the next power supply you are fooling yourself. Whoever finds it will be rich beyond belief.

They are all looking for it, testing for it, thinking outside of the box.

There is nothing more we can do to help that process.

 

This article is from February of 2013.

Greater than 97% of the actively publishing climatologists agree that global warming is occurring and that humans are a significant factor in that warming. What percentage of that group believes that we are currently warming the planet so quickly as to create a crisis is probably lower, but the amount of warming we have seen thus far and the fact that the underlying cause of the previous warming has only gotten worse should lead anyone willing to do a simple cost-benefit analysis into concluding that global warming is a very real and very dire threat that should warrant immediate action.

 

I can’t believe nobody has deflated this canard yet. The survey was exclusively of scientists who are part of APEGA, an organization which is dominated by the Alberta petroleum industry. This is not a representative sample of climate scientists by any means.

Actually, the 36% figure is quite high for experts who have a financial disincentive to reject the consensus. By contrast, publishers of climate science papers generally only have about a 10% disagreement with the consensus. So in a way, this shows that when you adjust for funding, petroleum industry experts are still more likely to accept AGW than their government funded peers are to reject it. Also, if you look at their findings, only about 24% actually rejected AGW completely. So there were a number of different categories, not just “yes” or “no.” To just report one category masks the spectrum of views.

In any case, we’ve had like a dozen surveys now, so there really can be no doubt that 82-98 percent of experts (depending on who you include and/or sampling methods) support AGW.

 

I hate it when that happens!

I read it and didn't even notice the date.

 

Are you aware of the Toxic Chemicals used in the manufacture, use and disposal of solar panels?

 

Of course, that's why they are ineffective.

 

All energy sources have hidden external costs such as impact on natural resources and human health. It would be a crazy coincidence if they were all equal however, wouldn't it?
The math on this has been done. Results vary, but the one overarching conclusion is that fossil fuels do not rank very high in terms of avoiding externalities. In fact, they probably rank lowest. Bear in mind also that solar power is probably the fastest improving technology on the market today, so old graphs will never do it justice.

 

Your charts are from a solar energy advocate and therefore discounted.

 

That sounds suspiciously circular. If you advocate for fossil fuels, does that make you a fossil fuels advocate and therefore discounted?

Both are from different peer reviewed journals. One ordered by the EU comission. The other is from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which has a small solar energy division. That division seems to account for about 327 of their 140,000 members. But ASME itself is reputable and multi-disciplinary, and they chose to publish the lower graph in their journal.

 

What's a discussion without T Legal showing up with the 97% horse ****?

Climate Change Has Run Its Course.

Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.

Judged by deeds rather than words, most national governments are backing away from forced-marched decarbonization. You can date the arc of climate change as a policy priority from 1988, when highly publicized congressional hearings first elevated the issue, to 2018. President Trump’s ostentatious withdrawal from the Paris Agreement merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.

A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.

The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out.
​

It had a nice 30 year run, it was declared dead 5 years ago when Gore sold his TV channel for a yuuuuge paycheck from Qatar, the very definition of Big Oil. It's taken another 1/2 decade for more of the Dead Enders to figure out that it is over.

 

Not a survey but a group of activists perusing published articles. Already debunked.

 

First, that study is from 2012. The article also cherry-picks the part of the study focused on a poll of petroleum industry experts and not climate experts. The study itself even makes it clear that climate experts overwhelmingly agree that anthroprogenic greenhouse gases are primarily responsible for the warming we observe today. And the fact that 36% of petroleum experts strongly believe that climate change is real and that humans are primarily responsible is not a very good fact to use to argue against AGW. Actually, I had no idea it was that high until you posted this. No doubt after 6 years that same survey would yield a result > 36% today.

 

That is hilarious, IMHO.

FInally, after decades of LIES and MANIPULATED DATA...some Truth.

 

Absolutely. Heavy metal (etal) contamination is absolutely what we should be focused on, instead of continuing to waste precious assets on the UN's income redistribution scam....

 

Still not debunked, nor is it horseshit. Nor is the claim based on one study.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

*sigh* if only we can figure out a way to convince the idiots of the merits of giving us more power and more money....

hey, what if we tell them they'll all drown, burn to death, starve to death, or be swept to their deaths in super-storms.... ooh, and that the science is impeccable and settled....ooh, and if they deny it, we'll shame them as anti-education and anti-science?

by jove, I think you're on to something, Karl

 

Well the truth according to this specific study is that 90%+ of climate scientists and 36% of petroleum experts acknowledge that the Earth is warming due to human influence. So if you want to use this line of truth as your rallying cry against AGW I don't think you're going to get many takers.

I'll take the bait on the "lies" and "manipulated data" claims though. Who lied? And who manipulated data?

 

Yeah? Science is all one big hoax is it?

 

Scientologists don't think so. I personally think they're....well, freaking kooks

 

Total crap, they didn't ask every scientist, they used sampling techniques, and ones far worse than those that predicted Hillary's "landslide".

You clowns fool no one.

A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.

Same load of crap, just being pushed from a different angle. This is the kind of nonsense that got you Trump and this is the kind of nonsense that gets you MORE TRUMP!

Trump was the American Electorate proudly lifting both middle fingers into the faces of these lying bastards that are on us and on us and on us, and now Trump is kicking their asses around every corner and having a ball doing it!

 

We already have the technology to basically provide energy at little to no cost.

The problem for them isn't figuring out how to provide cheap, clean energy to people.

The problem is figuring out how they're going to get rich from it.

 

Agreed.

 

Should we list all of the incorrect and nonsensical statements Trump has made about climate change?

 

Or just stuff your "progressivism" dressed up as "science" and your weird insistence these religious beliefs be compulsory.