Does this peer-reviewed study (referenced in Forbes) contradict the accepted position that climate change is...
$begingroup$
This Forbes article from 2013 (archive link here) with the headline "Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" gets brandied around a lot. It states that
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.
Also, 14% of the respondents replied that :
“they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant
public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
The article is reporting the paper Lefsrud and Meyer (2012) "Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change", Organization Studies, 33(11), pp. 1477–1506.
I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere, and (if the information is misleading), how can a layperson recognize that, given that its published in such a renowned magazine.
climate-change climate-models
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This Forbes article from 2013 (archive link here) with the headline "Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" gets brandied around a lot. It states that
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.
Also, 14% of the respondents replied that :
“they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant
public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
The article is reporting the paper Lefsrud and Meyer (2012) "Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change", Organization Studies, 33(11), pp. 1477–1506.
I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere, and (if the information is misleading), how can a layperson recognize that, given that its published in such a renowned magazine.
climate-change climate-models
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
I believe this question should be closed, as the quotes do not match the premise of the question. The question (from the title) relates to "climate change is not real", but the quotes relate to whether or not climate change is caused by humans and/or whether the impact of it will be significant. The quotes do not dispute whether or not climate change is real. Furthermore, I think the title has a typo and should read "contradict the accepted position that climate change is real" (i.e. remove the word "not").
$endgroup$
– JBentley
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Perhaps this is better over at the Skeptics SE?
$endgroup$
– BruceWayne
10 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "the accepted position that climate change is not real"?
$endgroup$
– Pedro A
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This Forbes article from 2013 (archive link here) with the headline "Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" gets brandied around a lot. It states that
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.
Also, 14% of the respondents replied that :
“they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant
public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
The article is reporting the paper Lefsrud and Meyer (2012) "Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change", Organization Studies, 33(11), pp. 1477–1506.
I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere, and (if the information is misleading), how can a layperson recognize that, given that its published in such a renowned magazine.
climate-change climate-models
$endgroup$
This Forbes article from 2013 (archive link here) with the headline "Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" gets brandied around a lot. It states that
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.
Also, 14% of the respondents replied that :
“they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant
public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
The article is reporting the paper Lefsrud and Meyer (2012) "Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change", Organization Studies, 33(11), pp. 1477–1506.
I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere, and (if the information is misleading), how can a layperson recognize that, given that its published in such a renowned magazine.
climate-change climate-models
climate-change climate-models
edited 9 mins ago
Daud
asked 21 hours ago
DaudDaud
21727
21727
6
$begingroup$
I believe this question should be closed, as the quotes do not match the premise of the question. The question (from the title) relates to "climate change is not real", but the quotes relate to whether or not climate change is caused by humans and/or whether the impact of it will be significant. The quotes do not dispute whether or not climate change is real. Furthermore, I think the title has a typo and should read "contradict the accepted position that climate change is real" (i.e. remove the word "not").
$endgroup$
– JBentley
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Perhaps this is better over at the Skeptics SE?
$endgroup$
– BruceWayne
10 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "the accepted position that climate change is not real"?
$endgroup$
– Pedro A
5 hours ago
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
I believe this question should be closed, as the quotes do not match the premise of the question. The question (from the title) relates to "climate change is not real", but the quotes relate to whether or not climate change is caused by humans and/or whether the impact of it will be significant. The quotes do not dispute whether or not climate change is real. Furthermore, I think the title has a typo and should read "contradict the accepted position that climate change is real" (i.e. remove the word "not").
$endgroup$
– JBentley
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Perhaps this is better over at the Skeptics SE?
$endgroup$
– BruceWayne
10 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "the accepted position that climate change is not real"?
$endgroup$
– Pedro A
5 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
I believe this question should be closed, as the quotes do not match the premise of the question. The question (from the title) relates to "climate change is not real", but the quotes relate to whether or not climate change is caused by humans and/or whether the impact of it will be significant. The quotes do not dispute whether or not climate change is real. Furthermore, I think the title has a typo and should read "contradict the accepted position that climate change is real" (i.e. remove the word "not").
$endgroup$
– JBentley
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I believe this question should be closed, as the quotes do not match the premise of the question. The question (from the title) relates to "climate change is not real", but the quotes relate to whether or not climate change is caused by humans and/or whether the impact of it will be significant. The quotes do not dispute whether or not climate change is real. Furthermore, I think the title has a typo and should read "contradict the accepted position that climate change is real" (i.e. remove the word "not").
$endgroup$
– JBentley
12 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
Perhaps this is better over at the Skeptics SE?
$endgroup$
– BruceWayne
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Perhaps this is better over at the Skeptics SE?
$endgroup$
– BruceWayne
10 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "the accepted position that climate change is not real"?
$endgroup$
– Pedro A
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "the accepted position that climate change is not real"?
$endgroup$
– Pedro A
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere
Yes. You can read all about it in this blog post.
In short, the original paper was designed to test the view of "professional geologists", which in this case are members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. The vast majority of them work in the fossil fuel industry. Therefore, those are people whose livelihood depends on the extraction of fossils fuels. This is not exactly the most unbiased crowd...
The article by James Taylor is spinning the original study into claiming that it applies to all geoscientists. The original authors of the study actually replied to Taylor's article saying:
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although
our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions,
it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …”
or “scientists don’t believe …”
(This is taken from a secondary source here)
In short, the article is not from "Forbes". It was published in Forbes, but written by a lying climate denier. He has misinterpreted the original study, as evident by two independent analyses and by the reply of the authors themselves.
So to answer your question:
Does this peer-reviewed study contradict the accepted position that climate change is not real?
This peer-reviewed study does not contradict anything. Climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by all scientists. What this peer-reviewed study shows is that those who deny the realities of climate change are those employed by the fossil fuel industry, particularly people in top management positions.
I will finish with some anecdotes. I am a geoscientist at a top Australian University. Every single one of the scientists here accept the climate change is a major threat to modern human civilisation as we know it. In a previous university where many people were involved with fossil fuel research, people accepted the realities of climate change. They were involved with the research because they either tried to find better ways of fossil fuels (realising that renewables are not there yet, and nuclear is unfortunately not an option), or because they have to pay their rent and feed their children. None denied that climate change is real, and none denied that the fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of it. We geoscientists all understand that the major driving force of the fossil fuel industry and climate change denialism is political, financial (usually old white rich men who don't care about anything but their own monetary benefit) and not scientific.
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
@SSight3 of course. Here, have three different sources! one two three. Thank you for asking.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@SSight3 grant funding works the opposite to “vested interests”. You first ask for money, then you get it, then you can do pretty much whatever. You are not expected to produce a certain result. Success in future grants is based on how good your scientific method was, and if you managed o discover something new and exciting. Therefore, the field is constantly evolving. And I reserve to use hyperboles as much as I wish.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
@SSight3 I am not discrediting the study. The study correctly showed that people employed by the fossil fuel industry tend to disagree that climate change is anthropogenic. The Forbes article generalised this to all scientists. This is wrong. The authors of the study said this is wrong. There is nothing mixed here.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
10
$begingroup$
@SSight3 why does it matter? The opinion of climate scientists is the one that matters. Just as you wouldn’t trust a climate scientist to design an oil rig, you shouldn’t trust a petroleum engineer who dismisses ACC.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@SSight3: Your claim (in the first comment) that "the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN" is absolutely wrong. The first work on global warming was done by Svante Arrhenius en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius and published around the turn of the 20th century, decades before the UN existed.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
|
show 26 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "553"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fearthscience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f16093%2fdoes-this-peer-reviewed-study-referenced-in-forbes-contradict-the-accepted-pos%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere
Yes. You can read all about it in this blog post.
In short, the original paper was designed to test the view of "professional geologists", which in this case are members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. The vast majority of them work in the fossil fuel industry. Therefore, those are people whose livelihood depends on the extraction of fossils fuels. This is not exactly the most unbiased crowd...
The article by James Taylor is spinning the original study into claiming that it applies to all geoscientists. The original authors of the study actually replied to Taylor's article saying:
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although
our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions,
it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …”
or “scientists don’t believe …”
(This is taken from a secondary source here)
In short, the article is not from "Forbes". It was published in Forbes, but written by a lying climate denier. He has misinterpreted the original study, as evident by two independent analyses and by the reply of the authors themselves.
So to answer your question:
Does this peer-reviewed study contradict the accepted position that climate change is not real?
This peer-reviewed study does not contradict anything. Climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by all scientists. What this peer-reviewed study shows is that those who deny the realities of climate change are those employed by the fossil fuel industry, particularly people in top management positions.
I will finish with some anecdotes. I am a geoscientist at a top Australian University. Every single one of the scientists here accept the climate change is a major threat to modern human civilisation as we know it. In a previous university where many people were involved with fossil fuel research, people accepted the realities of climate change. They were involved with the research because they either tried to find better ways of fossil fuels (realising that renewables are not there yet, and nuclear is unfortunately not an option), or because they have to pay their rent and feed their children. None denied that climate change is real, and none denied that the fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of it. We geoscientists all understand that the major driving force of the fossil fuel industry and climate change denialism is political, financial (usually old white rich men who don't care about anything but their own monetary benefit) and not scientific.
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
@SSight3 of course. Here, have three different sources! one two three. Thank you for asking.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@SSight3 grant funding works the opposite to “vested interests”. You first ask for money, then you get it, then you can do pretty much whatever. You are not expected to produce a certain result. Success in future grants is based on how good your scientific method was, and if you managed o discover something new and exciting. Therefore, the field is constantly evolving. And I reserve to use hyperboles as much as I wish.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
@SSight3 I am not discrediting the study. The study correctly showed that people employed by the fossil fuel industry tend to disagree that climate change is anthropogenic. The Forbes article generalised this to all scientists. This is wrong. The authors of the study said this is wrong. There is nothing mixed here.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
10
$begingroup$
@SSight3 why does it matter? The opinion of climate scientists is the one that matters. Just as you wouldn’t trust a climate scientist to design an oil rig, you shouldn’t trust a petroleum engineer who dismisses ACC.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@SSight3: Your claim (in the first comment) that "the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN" is absolutely wrong. The first work on global warming was done by Svante Arrhenius en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius and published around the turn of the 20th century, decades before the UN existed.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
|
show 26 more comments
$begingroup$
I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere
Yes. You can read all about it in this blog post.
In short, the original paper was designed to test the view of "professional geologists", which in this case are members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. The vast majority of them work in the fossil fuel industry. Therefore, those are people whose livelihood depends on the extraction of fossils fuels. This is not exactly the most unbiased crowd...
The article by James Taylor is spinning the original study into claiming that it applies to all geoscientists. The original authors of the study actually replied to Taylor's article saying:
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although
our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions,
it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …”
or “scientists don’t believe …”
(This is taken from a secondary source here)
In short, the article is not from "Forbes". It was published in Forbes, but written by a lying climate denier. He has misinterpreted the original study, as evident by two independent analyses and by the reply of the authors themselves.
So to answer your question:
Does this peer-reviewed study contradict the accepted position that climate change is not real?
This peer-reviewed study does not contradict anything. Climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by all scientists. What this peer-reviewed study shows is that those who deny the realities of climate change are those employed by the fossil fuel industry, particularly people in top management positions.
I will finish with some anecdotes. I am a geoscientist at a top Australian University. Every single one of the scientists here accept the climate change is a major threat to modern human civilisation as we know it. In a previous university where many people were involved with fossil fuel research, people accepted the realities of climate change. They were involved with the research because they either tried to find better ways of fossil fuels (realising that renewables are not there yet, and nuclear is unfortunately not an option), or because they have to pay their rent and feed their children. None denied that climate change is real, and none denied that the fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of it. We geoscientists all understand that the major driving force of the fossil fuel industry and climate change denialism is political, financial (usually old white rich men who don't care about anything but their own monetary benefit) and not scientific.
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
@SSight3 of course. Here, have three different sources! one two three. Thank you for asking.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@SSight3 grant funding works the opposite to “vested interests”. You first ask for money, then you get it, then you can do pretty much whatever. You are not expected to produce a certain result. Success in future grants is based on how good your scientific method was, and if you managed o discover something new and exciting. Therefore, the field is constantly evolving. And I reserve to use hyperboles as much as I wish.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
@SSight3 I am not discrediting the study. The study correctly showed that people employed by the fossil fuel industry tend to disagree that climate change is anthropogenic. The Forbes article generalised this to all scientists. This is wrong. The authors of the study said this is wrong. There is nothing mixed here.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
10
$begingroup$
@SSight3 why does it matter? The opinion of climate scientists is the one that matters. Just as you wouldn’t trust a climate scientist to design an oil rig, you shouldn’t trust a petroleum engineer who dismisses ACC.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@SSight3: Your claim (in the first comment) that "the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN" is absolutely wrong. The first work on global warming was done by Svante Arrhenius en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius and published around the turn of the 20th century, decades before the UN existed.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
|
show 26 more comments
$begingroup$
I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere
Yes. You can read all about it in this blog post.
In short, the original paper was designed to test the view of "professional geologists", which in this case are members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. The vast majority of them work in the fossil fuel industry. Therefore, those are people whose livelihood depends on the extraction of fossils fuels. This is not exactly the most unbiased crowd...
The article by James Taylor is spinning the original study into claiming that it applies to all geoscientists. The original authors of the study actually replied to Taylor's article saying:
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although
our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions,
it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …”
or “scientists don’t believe …”
(This is taken from a secondary source here)
In short, the article is not from "Forbes". It was published in Forbes, but written by a lying climate denier. He has misinterpreted the original study, as evident by two independent analyses and by the reply of the authors themselves.
So to answer your question:
Does this peer-reviewed study contradict the accepted position that climate change is not real?
This peer-reviewed study does not contradict anything. Climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by all scientists. What this peer-reviewed study shows is that those who deny the realities of climate change are those employed by the fossil fuel industry, particularly people in top management positions.
I will finish with some anecdotes. I am a geoscientist at a top Australian University. Every single one of the scientists here accept the climate change is a major threat to modern human civilisation as we know it. In a previous university where many people were involved with fossil fuel research, people accepted the realities of climate change. They were involved with the research because they either tried to find better ways of fossil fuels (realising that renewables are not there yet, and nuclear is unfortunately not an option), or because they have to pay their rent and feed their children. None denied that climate change is real, and none denied that the fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of it. We geoscientists all understand that the major driving force of the fossil fuel industry and climate change denialism is political, financial (usually old white rich men who don't care about anything but their own monetary benefit) and not scientific.
$endgroup$
I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere
Yes. You can read all about it in this blog post.
In short, the original paper was designed to test the view of "professional geologists", which in this case are members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. The vast majority of them work in the fossil fuel industry. Therefore, those are people whose livelihood depends on the extraction of fossils fuels. This is not exactly the most unbiased crowd...
The article by James Taylor is spinning the original study into claiming that it applies to all geoscientists. The original authors of the study actually replied to Taylor's article saying:
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although
our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions,
it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …”
or “scientists don’t believe …”
(This is taken from a secondary source here)
In short, the article is not from "Forbes". It was published in Forbes, but written by a lying climate denier. He has misinterpreted the original study, as evident by two independent analyses and by the reply of the authors themselves.
So to answer your question:
Does this peer-reviewed study contradict the accepted position that climate change is not real?
This peer-reviewed study does not contradict anything. Climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by all scientists. What this peer-reviewed study shows is that those who deny the realities of climate change are those employed by the fossil fuel industry, particularly people in top management positions.
I will finish with some anecdotes. I am a geoscientist at a top Australian University. Every single one of the scientists here accept the climate change is a major threat to modern human civilisation as we know it. In a previous university where many people were involved with fossil fuel research, people accepted the realities of climate change. They were involved with the research because they either tried to find better ways of fossil fuels (realising that renewables are not there yet, and nuclear is unfortunately not an option), or because they have to pay their rent and feed their children. None denied that climate change is real, and none denied that the fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of it. We geoscientists all understand that the major driving force of the fossil fuel industry and climate change denialism is political, financial (usually old white rich men who don't care about anything but their own monetary benefit) and not scientific.
answered 19 hours ago
GimelistGimelist
15.1k44896
15.1k44896
12
$begingroup$
@SSight3 of course. Here, have three different sources! one two three. Thank you for asking.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@SSight3 grant funding works the opposite to “vested interests”. You first ask for money, then you get it, then you can do pretty much whatever. You are not expected to produce a certain result. Success in future grants is based on how good your scientific method was, and if you managed o discover something new and exciting. Therefore, the field is constantly evolving. And I reserve to use hyperboles as much as I wish.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
@SSight3 I am not discrediting the study. The study correctly showed that people employed by the fossil fuel industry tend to disagree that climate change is anthropogenic. The Forbes article generalised this to all scientists. This is wrong. The authors of the study said this is wrong. There is nothing mixed here.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
10
$begingroup$
@SSight3 why does it matter? The opinion of climate scientists is the one that matters. Just as you wouldn’t trust a climate scientist to design an oil rig, you shouldn’t trust a petroleum engineer who dismisses ACC.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@SSight3: Your claim (in the first comment) that "the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN" is absolutely wrong. The first work on global warming was done by Svante Arrhenius en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius and published around the turn of the 20th century, decades before the UN existed.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
|
show 26 more comments
12
$begingroup$
@SSight3 of course. Here, have three different sources! one two three. Thank you for asking.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@SSight3 grant funding works the opposite to “vested interests”. You first ask for money, then you get it, then you can do pretty much whatever. You are not expected to produce a certain result. Success in future grants is based on how good your scientific method was, and if you managed o discover something new and exciting. Therefore, the field is constantly evolving. And I reserve to use hyperboles as much as I wish.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
@SSight3 I am not discrediting the study. The study correctly showed that people employed by the fossil fuel industry tend to disagree that climate change is anthropogenic. The Forbes article generalised this to all scientists. This is wrong. The authors of the study said this is wrong. There is nothing mixed here.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
10
$begingroup$
@SSight3 why does it matter? The opinion of climate scientists is the one that matters. Just as you wouldn’t trust a climate scientist to design an oil rig, you shouldn’t trust a petroleum engineer who dismisses ACC.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@SSight3: Your claim (in the first comment) that "the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN" is absolutely wrong. The first work on global warming was done by Svante Arrhenius en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius and published around the turn of the 20th century, decades before the UN existed.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
12
12
$begingroup$
@SSight3 of course. Here, have three different sources! one two three. Thank you for asking.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SSight3 of course. Here, have three different sources! one two three. Thank you for asking.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
15 hours ago
7
7
$begingroup$
@SSight3 grant funding works the opposite to “vested interests”. You first ask for money, then you get it, then you can do pretty much whatever. You are not expected to produce a certain result. Success in future grants is based on how good your scientific method was, and if you managed o discover something new and exciting. Therefore, the field is constantly evolving. And I reserve to use hyperboles as much as I wish.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SSight3 grant funding works the opposite to “vested interests”. You first ask for money, then you get it, then you can do pretty much whatever. You are not expected to produce a certain result. Success in future grants is based on how good your scientific method was, and if you managed o discover something new and exciting. Therefore, the field is constantly evolving. And I reserve to use hyperboles as much as I wish.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
11
11
$begingroup$
@SSight3 I am not discrediting the study. The study correctly showed that people employed by the fossil fuel industry tend to disagree that climate change is anthropogenic. The Forbes article generalised this to all scientists. This is wrong. The authors of the study said this is wrong. There is nothing mixed here.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SSight3 I am not discrediting the study. The study correctly showed that people employed by the fossil fuel industry tend to disagree that climate change is anthropogenic. The Forbes article generalised this to all scientists. This is wrong. The authors of the study said this is wrong. There is nothing mixed here.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
10
10
$begingroup$
@SSight3 why does it matter? The opinion of climate scientists is the one that matters. Just as you wouldn’t trust a climate scientist to design an oil rig, you shouldn’t trust a petroleum engineer who dismisses ACC.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SSight3 why does it matter? The opinion of climate scientists is the one that matters. Just as you wouldn’t trust a climate scientist to design an oil rig, you shouldn’t trust a petroleum engineer who dismisses ACC.
$endgroup$
– Gimelist
13 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
@SSight3: Your claim (in the first comment) that "the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN" is absolutely wrong. The first work on global warming was done by Svante Arrhenius en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius and published around the turn of the 20th century, decades before the UN existed.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SSight3: Your claim (in the first comment) that "the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN" is absolutely wrong. The first work on global warming was done by Svante Arrhenius en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius and published around the turn of the 20th century, decades before the UN existed.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
|
show 26 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Earth Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fearthscience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f16093%2fdoes-this-peer-reviewed-study-referenced-in-forbes-contradict-the-accepted-pos%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
$begingroup$
I believe this question should be closed, as the quotes do not match the premise of the question. The question (from the title) relates to "climate change is not real", but the quotes relate to whether or not climate change is caused by humans and/or whether the impact of it will be significant. The quotes do not dispute whether or not climate change is real. Furthermore, I think the title has a typo and should read "contradict the accepted position that climate change is real" (i.e. remove the word "not").
$endgroup$
– JBentley
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Perhaps this is better over at the Skeptics SE?
$endgroup$
– BruceWayne
10 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
What do you mean by "the accepted position that climate change is not real"?
$endgroup$
– Pedro A
5 hours ago