Headlining the news last week was the startling revelation that 64% of climate change scientists now believe that man has little or nothing to do with either climate change or global warming. Missed it? Not surprising in that the scientific, peer-reviewed survey was reported by Forbes and no other major news outlet. Given the previously claimed “absolute proof” that man is a major contributing factor to global warming, it is not surprising that the media is ignoring this story while we continue to spend billions of dollars supporting what is at best unsure science.
As reported in the peer-reviewed academic journal Organization Studies article “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change.” 64% of the 1,077 geoscientists and engineers surveyed indicated that they believe that man has little or no impact on climate change and global warming while only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis. The findings of this scientific study were largely similar to surveys taken of meteorologists as reported in Heartland and by George Mason University which also showed a significant majority of those scientists believed that the man-made impacts on global warming were either non-existent or insignificant.
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?”
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. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”
The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”
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.” This 36% is very convinced that they are right, however, dismissing all other groups in derogatory terms such as “denier.” The Politically Correct have been over the top censoring opposing viewpoints on this issue. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, the alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’ Even professionally, I have been attacked as “out of touch” anytime that I simply want to talk about the issue while the government requires stores to plant grass on commercial roofs to “reduce the carbon footprint” to mitigate “global warming impacts.” You have to go no further than this video to see how vile and intentional global warming advocates are about stifling debate.
Writing for Forbes, James Taylor made some interesting observation about the survey:
Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.
People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, 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.
Mr. Taylor is correct. Policy is now clearly ahead of the science and alarmists like Al Gore have created fortunes frightening the public and government policy makers into huge tax payer support for “green” industries. It would be nice if the emerging scientific opinion would get just a fraction of the media and government attention received by global warming advocates, but then most of the media is uncomfortable with that “Inconvenient Truth.”