Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on June 17, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds 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-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?”

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.”

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.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. 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, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

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.


32 Comments on "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"

  1. MASTERMIND on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 8:40 am 

    Collapse of Global Civilization by 2020-Irrefutable Evidence

  2. Kenz300 on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 9:43 am 

    Forbes — spokesman for the fossil fuel industry.

    How much of their income from advertising comes from the fossil fuel industry?

  3. Cloggie on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 9:45 am

    For the record: I do not deny that man-made climate COULD exist, that global warming DOES exist and that this should be monitored and taken seriously.

    But I also think that both scientific climate change affirmers as well as deniers should be subsidized and encouraged to debate and exchange findings.

    We should also be aware of secret political agenda’s of pushers of man-made climate change.

    Additionally we should not close out eyes for possible advantages of climate change.

    Having said that, what a terrible day this must be for apneaman, our local climate change Lenin (wannabee).

  4. Dredd on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 9:54 am 

    A peer in a peer review is or should be a critic (Peering Into The World of Science).

    They should not be like President Trump’s cabinet extolling the sacred virtues of the “blessings” their dear leader tweets upon them.

  5. Dredd on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 10:00 am 

    The forbes link at the bottom of this Shape Shifters of Bullshitistan post is entitled “Understanding The New Iran Sanctions”.

  6. Dredd on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 10:03 am 

    There is no such thing as a “Peer-Reviewed Survey” … but you might want to try Pole Dancing In The Lab

    The moral of the story is “Don’t believe in poles …”

  7. dissident on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 10:22 am 

    I looked at this “peer reviewed” POS. Clearly Sage Journals are some sort of politically skewed outfit. The article talks about “debate”. There is no scientific debate about greenhouse gas effects and the fact that humans pump 30 billion tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere by releasing fossil carbon reservoirs vs. 600 million tons from volcanoes. These are established facts. The ISI Web of Science includes all sort of shady journals such as “Organization Studies” which attempt to pontificate on climate science without any qualifications. So there is a build up of BS “articles” purporting to disagree with the actual scientific consensus. In other words, the ISI Web of Science is not proving squat.

    Scientific consensus is not groupthink or goose stepping conformity as deniers claim. It results from decades of contentious discussion in the peer reviewed literature where research groups establish their claims based on empirical evidence. Science journals are superior to any judicial system on the planet in establishing the facts.

    Peer review means ***peer*** review and not sociologist review in shady journals. These authors are not qualified to judge the science. They have no direct experience with the work of climate scientists and scientists in general. They make conjectures while quoting politician clowns like Inhofe.

  8. Midnight Oil on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 10:47 am 

    I ALWAYS refer to “Forbes” regarding science.
    After I do my fact checking on Fox News.
    It’s not like we can trust journalism now a days.
    There is always Scott Pruitt of the EPA to validate their statements.
    Boy, The Ministry of Truth is doing a helluva job to keep the sheeple calm and behaving themselves.

  9. onlooker on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 10:56 am 

    Shills for BAU system. Enuf said

  10. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 11:23 am 

    Why would anyone looking for for professional opinions on AGW ask a bunch of engineers and petroleum geologists?

    That’s like after experiencing 3 days of chest pains going and asking your muffler repair guy for medical advise.

    Heartland retards.

    More importantly, who gives a fuck? Consensus don’t mean shit to me. Not in the earth sciences or any other science. Science is not about consensus. It’s about methodology and empirical evidence. It’s not a popularity contest. Seems like the heartland wants it both ways when it comes to consensus and they misconstrue it for their way. Whenever you hear of a scientific consensus, it refers to a consensus among the people who study such matters. When you hear there is a scientific consensus on gravitational theory, I can assure you they did not ask any marine biologists or engineers for their views.

    Consensus, for or against, is a political ploy for the 99% majority of the monkyes who are driven by their primitive tribal pull.

    Another few years of increasing AGW consequences smashing the shit out of civilization and its inhabitants and they’ll go silent.

    Denier industrial complex always was a huge waste of money since the cancer apes are incapable of slowing down.

  11. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 11:41 am 

    clog, “For the record: I do not deny that man-made climate COULD exist”

    Sounds like Bill Clinton. “COULD” “IS”

    Like the rest of the denier tards attempting to save face, you are just trying to weasel out of it and only put your foot in father – very amusing watching y’all squirming on the hook.

  12. superpeasant on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 11:48 am 

    As Apneaman suggests – this is drivel. If they conducted a survey amongst climatologists and glaciologists in the relevant fields it would make sense. However, because those are the groups where there is a 97% consensus on anthropogenic climate change it wouldn’t give the extremist political result they wanted. Climate change is a global phenomenon which is being studied by scientists in the relevant fields in scores of countries. To conduct a survey amongst scientists from scores of fields in a single country is simply very, very stupid. I don’t know about Forbes. Is it a publication aimed at irrational people?

  13. Sissyfuss on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 12:17 pm 

    Agree totally with Super, asking engineers about climate science is like asking Clogspew what hot women want in a man. And Peasant, Forbes is the acme of greedmongers on our battle scarred planet. Would sell their children’s future for the right return.

  14. bobinget on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 12:24 pm 

    Sissy. Steve Forbes, the only presidential candidate dumber than Trump. What do you expect?

  15. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 2:02 pm 

    France is offering US scientists 4-year grants to move to the country and do research

  16. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 2:05 pm 


    Melt of Key Antarctic Glaciers ‘Unstoppable,’ Studies Find


    Scientists Saw A Nearly Unheard Of Antarctic Meltdown

    Once the corks begin popping it won’t take long.

  17. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 2:09 pm 

    Unlikely Netherlands will close coal plants soon-Green Left leader

    “It’s not going to happen”

    “The Netherlands came under intense criticism in 2015 when a review showed just 5.6 percent of its energy had come from renewable sources the previous year and coal use was at a record high after three major new coal plants were brought on line.”

  18. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 2:46 pm 

    Modern computing power may help mitigate future flood disasters

    “Many of the 80,000 dams in our country, especially the 90 percent classified as smaller, have similar structural problems as the Oroville Dam,” Wright says. “We know it’s just a matter of time until a big rainfall will overwhelm the next one—but unfortunately, this problem is not yet receiving enough attention.”

    Read more at:

  19. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 5:32 pm 

    Rising seas spurred record number of ‘high-tide’ floods in U.S. last year

    “The U.S. endured a record number of days of high-tide flooding last year largely due to rising seas from man-made climate change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

    Across the USA, coastal cities and towns racked up a combined 520 days with high-tide floods, far above the annual average of 275 days over the past couple decades, NOAA oceanographer William Sweet said. That broke the previous record set only a year earlier when 513 flood days were tallied in 2015, he added.”

    “he report only examined coastal flooding, not inundation brought on by sudden, heavy rain or overflowing rivers. As sea levels rise, it no longer takes a strong storm or hurricane to cause coastal flooding. It now occurs with high tides in many locations.

    Also known as nuisance or clear-sky flooding, the phenomenon has increased by as much as 1,000% in some areas since the 1960s. NOAA tracks high-tide floods in 28 coastal cities.

    Charleston, S.C., with 50 days, and Savannah, Ga., with 38 days, both broke their records in 2016 for number of days in a year with high-tide flooding. Key West, Fla., with 14 days, tied its record.

    Other cities that dealt with extensive flooding included Wilmington, N.C., (84 days); Honolulu (45 days); Annapolis, Md., (42 days), and Washington D.C. (33 days).

    These floods lead to road closures, overwhelmed storm drains and damaged property but are seldom life-threatening. They’re mostly caused by climate-related sea-level rise, NOAA said.”

    Keep throwing money at it. Everything will be fine. For 5 more minutes.

  20. diemos on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 7:07 pm 

    Someone should introduce these “scientists” to a little thing called “sampling bias”. Yeesh.

  21. JuanP on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 8:51 pm 

    I have no doubt that having a population of 7,500,000,000 that grows by around 80,000,000 per year is a smart way to go about creating a better future for us. I am so convinced of this that I had no children and sterilized myself so that your children could enjoy the world you are creating for them all by themselves. Please go get laid and get some stupid bitch pregnant today! We need more retards in this world because we don’t have enough yet! Please don’t waste any opportunity to add to our very smart population! Maybe one day your kid will be very successful and become a Forbes writer and millions of retards will read the shit it writes.

    I, myself, skipped this shit because I have no time to waste. I rented space on a local organic farm and have to plan my crop planting. I am also designing a 9 bed raised bed garden for a public school which my wife and I are financing and building ourselves. I designed and built a 3,000 sqft pollinators’ garden this week and a school’s raised bed garden last week. But I don’t fool myself into believing I am making a better world or any other unrealistic crap. We are screwed and it’s too late. This is just what I like doing with my life. Carpe diem! Seize the day, guys!

  22. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 10:53 pm 

    Jaun, you got it. You GOGrow dude.

  23. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 11:05 pm 

    More AGW consequences.

    Floods dampen real estate

    “The real estate market in the Okanagan has gone slightly soggy, as ongoing flood concerns in the area appear to be driving some prospective buyers away.”

  24. Duncan Idaho on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 11:37 pm 

    Organization Studies is a management journal, and has nothing to do with climate science.

  25. dave thompson on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 11:38 pm 

    Think about this, the atmosphere is about ten miles thick. What the fuck do you think happens to it? Humans dumping all sorts of crap into it. we are fucking this shit up and are all to blame. The sorry sad state is that we knew better but chose the shiny objects instead.

  26. Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jun 2017 11:45 pm 

    it’s an “opinion piece from 2013.

    “Feb 13, 2013 @ 01:19 PM 533,075
    The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
    Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

    James Taylor ,


    I am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation.

    Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.”

    Lame on you

  27. makati1 on Sun, 18th Jun 2017 12:08 am 

    Dave, many people believe that the sky is limitless, just like the ocean so how could we possibly contaminate it. If they cannot see it, it doesn’t exist. If America’s bombs are not destroying their own neighborhood, they don’t care. If their neighbor is put on the street due to lack of income, it is not a problem. So many are in for a hard hit with that 2X4 of reality.

  28. dave thompson on Sun, 18th Jun 2017 12:28 am 

    Yea let the shiny objects rock.

  29. Apneaman on Sun, 18th Jun 2017 12:38 am 

    It’s only 40 billion tons a year [CO2]. Yabut there is a big vent in the sky that releases it to outer space.

    Daily CO2

    June 13, 2017: 409.62 ppm

    June 13, 2016: 407.36 ppm
    May CO2

    May 2017: 409.65 ppm

    May 2016: 407.70 ppm

    CO2 levels and mass extinction events

    “The chart below is adapted from a similar graph in Dr. Peter Ward’s book, “Under a Green Sky.” It simply plots all the mass extinction events of the last 500 million years against the best estimate of carbon dioxide levels (CO2) at the time. According to his analysis all major extinctions occurred when CO2 levels exceeded a thousand parts per million (ppm).

    The cause for concern is that the current CO2 level — approximately 393 ppm — is projected to reach a thousand ppm in approximately one hundred years at the current rate of increase. What is unknown is how quickly such a chain of events could occur, and precisely what they are. In the above cited book, Ward offers a hypothesis about the changing ocean chemistry as CO2 and temperature rise significantly.

    It is still hard to project the rate of change, due to the extremely fast change of CO2 levels in modern times. Dr. James Hansen, a leading climate expert points out in his book “Storms of My Grandchildren” that at the current rate CO2 will increase one hundred ppm in approximately 40 years. During past periods of abrupt change — the most recent one occurring approximately 50 million years ago — it took roughly a million years for CO2 to change by one hundred ppm. Thus it is now changing about 25,000 times faster than in known geologic history.”

    According to his analysis all major extinctions occurred when CO2 levels exceeded a thousand parts per million (ppm).

    It’s not like everything is awesome right up to 999 ppm and it only sucks once it hits 1000 ppm. Nope. The sucking has already started. 280-300 ppm is stable. What agriculture and civilization was able to prosper under.

  30. Jef on Sun, 18th Jun 2017 8:34 am 

    The important fact that seems to put it all into perspective for most is that with 0 to 100 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere Earth is mostly a frozen ball of ice. 500 to 1000 ppm a flaming unlivable hell.

  31. Apneaman on Sun, 18th Jun 2017 9:20 pm 

    Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Spherical Earth

    Article reprinted with the permission of Flat Earth weekly.

  32. Apneaman on Mon, 19th Jun 2017 10:23 am 

    Heat Wave Sets New Record Highs In 9 Bay Area Cities

    “SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) – High temperatures in nine San Francisco Bay Area locations were new records for Sunday’s date, National Weather Service officials said.

    In San Rafael, the temperature reached 105 degrees, breaking the record of 98 degrees set in 1962.

    At Moffett Field the temperature reached 100 degrees, which broke the record of 95 degrees set in 1993.

    It was 106 degrees in Livermore where the previous record was 105 in 1918.

    It was 103 degrees in Kentfield, one degree higher than the previous record set in 1945.

    The temperature in Richmond reached 92 degrees, breaking the old record of 85 in 1957.

    In San Francisco, the temperature rose to 88 degrees, which broke the record of 86 degrees set in 1993.

    At San Francisco International Airport the temperature reached 97 degrees, breaking the previous record of 88 in 1981.

    At Oakland International Airport, the temperature also reached 97 degrees, breaking the record of 93 degrees set in 1962.

    In San Jose, the temperature reached 103 degrees, breaking the old record of 99 in 1945.

    Meteorologist Anna Schneider said it’s possible more records will be broken this week, but Sunday was the best chance for that.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *