Majority (64%) of scientists are skeptical of global warming, study shows

[zorkuus]

Some years ago the Discovery Institute published a study that claimed a large percentage of scientists do not accept evolution with signatures from said scientists. Turned out none of their field was evolutionary biology, some weren't even scientists of any field and one guy was a janitor at a university. This is even worse than that. And how come? because the DI study was just collecting random names, this is a study where people are paid to have their opinion swayed one way.

[TZucchini]

From the report:

27.4% believe it is caused by primarily natural factors (natural variation, volcanoes, sunspots, lithosphere motions, etc.), 25.7% believe it is caused by primarily human factors (burning fossil fuels, changing land use, enhanced water evaporation due to irrigation), and 45.2% believe that climate change is caused by both human and natural factors.

Wait. So 70% of non-climate scientist believe that the globe is definitely warming, and that it's caused by a combination of HUMAN ACTIVITY and natural factors?

That's pretty good for a bunch of non-climate scientists. Much better than the general public....

[Benggaul]

Whether we're the cause or not, it's still happening. We still need to be ready.

This. While I've no doubt that humanity has accelerated the change, it's a change that's been constantly happening on our little revolving rock over the course of billions of years. Our world has gone through cyclic climate change all that time (there have been several Ice Ages, and we're actually past due for another) and we're going around again even now.

I think the debate needs to stop focusing on whether or not "global climate change" is happening--because it absolutely is--and possibly even let up a little on how much humanity has affected it and instead direct all of that energy and brainpower towards working out survivable solutions for the future. And by "future" I mean very, very distant. Climate change will eventually wipe out humanity if we're unable to adapt in some way (or manage to stumble our way onto a new Goldilocks planet), but nobody alive today is likely to experience our end first-hand.

[Garnier Fructis]

Some years ago the Discovery Institute published a study that claimed a large percentage of scientists do not accept evolution with signatures from said scientists. Turned out none of their field was evolutionary biology, some weren't even scientists of any field and one guy was a janitor at a university. This is even worse than that. And how come? because the DI study was just collecting random names, this is a study where people are paid to have their opinion swayed one way.

What if the janitor was a russian physicist?

[Kraenen]

The vast majority of doctors in the 50s who were being paid by cigarette companies agree smoking is good for your health

[OzoAndIndi]

What do you guys think?

Personally I think climate issues are a mix of sources. No, I don't think we're the only cause of every bit of it, the planet has natural cycles. However, people who think we can go about trashing this planet the way we have been doing for so long, eradicating forests and other places that are a part of the balance this planet had previously established for itself, and introducing things into the air, land, and water that were not there before or were in much lower amounts... if anyone thinks that is somehow not going to impact anything, as if we're as excused from it like 300 kids trashing a star athlete's house... yeah, just /facepalm

[therayeffect]

The spin in this study is making me dizzy. They aren't scientists at all. A very misleading title. What a load of shit. Last I knew something like 90%+ of actual scientists believe that global warming is real... what a load of shit this article is ahaha.

[TZucchini]

Scientists don't accept global warming.....but their peer reviewed studies sure do!

[Mihalik]

The study is from February, but it's interesting how this contrasts greatly with what we've been hearing from a certain group of politicians. This coupled with the recent evidence that the polar ice caps might not be shrinking after all, is rather alarming. I don't really know enough about "global warming" to hold a view one way or another, but this is an interesting development. What do you guys think?

Awwww, that is a nice piece of selective research. Especially considering that it's an opinion poll, rather then an actual study, backed up by verifiable data. *wink, wink*

I'm a Geologist. I can tell you this much straight up. I'm utterly and totally convinced of Human induced Climate Change. Believe it or not, the data and the patterns are completely obvious to anyone scientifically literate, unless that person happens to be pushing an agenda.

Now how said climate change manifests itself, or what are the exact rates and time frames are still up for debate. Why? Because it is a terribly complex issue.

But the problem is however would climate change manifest itself, or at whatever rate, the economic and human damage are tremendous and will get worse.

Can we stop it? No.
Can we slow it? Yes.
Should we slow it? ABSOLUTELY.

We are all living on borrowed time. Time we borrow from future generations. It is irrelevant how much wealth and profit we hoard today, unless future generations can migrate along with the changing climate as our nomadic ancestors have, they will suffer greatly. And we aren't living in a world where the population could just pack up, and relocate.

Now despite knowing all this for a fact. I still work on projects that damage the environment. Why? Because it's my business on the line, and because I have bills to pay. I don't want to be a leader, I'm not cut out for it. But I'm definitely willing to follow.

[Zdrasti]

Title of this thread is misleading, the survey is not of scientists. And even if it were, it should be of scientists who work on climate related research, not just scientists in general.

[Zecora]

The study is from February, but it's interesting how this contrasts greatly with what we've been hearing from a certain group of politicians. This coupled with the recent evidence that the polar ice caps might not be shrinking after all, is rather alarming. I don't really know enough about "global warming" to hold a view one way or another, but this is an interesting development. What do you guys think?

"Scientists", yes, sure, oki. It's a pretty wide definition. Come back when 64% of scientists that actually STUDY THE CLIMATE and doesn't work in a field that would be threatened if actual steps toward alleviating climate change say the same.

And kindly rephrase your extremely misleading thread title to reflect that these are not climatologists or people who have in any way studied the climate. In fact, they are no more knowledgable in the field than any average joe off the street.

- - - Updated - - -

Scientists don't accept global warming.....but their peer reviewed studies sure do!

Nono...you're doing it all wrong! What, you actually think that scientists that study the subject know more about it than someone who study...let's say the migration rate of slime molds on sandpaper? Perish the thought!

Oh, wait...I left my sarcasm button toggled to "on" there, so sorry.

[Orbitus]

And Nakura gets shut down again. How can you claim 64% of scientists deny global warming when said scientists aren't anything but paid lackeys. Most likely paid by the Koch Brothers and the Heritage foundation?

[Cthulhu 2020]

"Scientists", yes, sure, oki. Come back when 64% of scientists that actually STUDY THE CLIMATE and doesn't work in a field that would be threatened if actual steps toward alleviating climate change say the same.

- - - Updated - - -




Nono...you're doing it all wrong! What, you actually think that scientists that study the subject know more about it than someone who study...let's say the migration rate of slime molds on sandpaper? Perish the thought!

Oh, wait...I left my sarcasm button toggled to "on" there, so sorry.

I heard climate scientists are funded by the illuminati. I read it somewhere on the internet therefor it must be true!

[THE Bigzoman]

Questioning Global Warming like this annoys me. It's not like it changes anything... all the measures pretty much lower pollution and well pollution is a serious problem. If a person is anti-global warming measures I must question... are they pro pollution?

You're skeptical of a theory like a scientist should be?

YOU MUST BE PRO POLLUTION!

[Cthulhu 2020]

You're skeptical of a theory like a scientist should be?

YOU MUST BE PRO POLLUTION!

People SHOULD be skeptical. It's what makes us learn. When you are skeptical, you observe and rationally gauge all information available to you and come to an informed decision.

I was at one point an actual Global Climate Change skeptic, I was not convinced. But I reviewed all of the evidence and made an informed decision.

Unfortunately there exist very few true skeptics about global warming... very few people with an open mind who are willing to review all the evidence put forth before them and do it in a way that corresponds with science.

What we have instead is a large camp of what are known as deniers. It's a very fitting term because they truly do deny and do not possess an open mind. They instead choose to follow a certain political spectrum which has an ideology that benefits directly from global climate change not being accepted as fact, and therefor push falsehoods and selectively hold up lone studies that affirm their agenda in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Garnier Fructis]

You're skeptical of a theory like a scientist should be?

YOU MUST BE PRO POLLUTION!

Skeptical and deny no matter what are two different things.

I was at one point an actual Global Climate Change skeptic, I was not convinced. But I reviewed all of the evidence and made an informed decision.

I was like this once. I still remember sending videos to my physics teacher and arguing about it with classmates.

[THE Bigzoman]

People SHOULD be skeptical. It's what makes us learn. When you are skeptical, you observe and rationally gauge all information available to you and come to an informed decision.

I was at one point an actual Global Climate Change skeptic, I was not convinced. But I reviewed all of the evidence and made an informed decision.

Unfortunately there exist very few true skeptics about global warming... very few people with an open mind who are willing to review all the evidence put forth before them and do it in a way that corresponds with science.

What we have instead is a large camp of what are known as deniers. It's a very fitting term because they truly do deny and do not possess an open mind. They instead choose to follow a certain political spectrum which has an ideology that benefits directly from global climate change not being accepted as fact, and therefor push falsehoods and selectively hold up lone studies that affirm their agenda in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

And how do you identidfy genuine skeptics and the deniers? Or does one simply label them all as deniers? Regardless of how concrete partictular theories may be, there are always genuine skeptics and ideas that seem far fetched when they reach the ears of the communitty.

[Endus]

You're skeptical of a theory like a scientist should be?

"Skeptical" means you review the evidence.

When you see the absolutely staggering amount of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change, and the complete lack of anything successfully contradicting that evidence or providing an alternative that better fits the evidence, then you come to the necessary conclusion; that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

"Skepticism" isn't about denying stuff despite the evidence. It's about requiring evidence, and making your decision thereon. It's about asking questions, in search of answers. If you're denying climate change, you are not a "skeptic". You're not asking questions. You're very carefully avoiding questions, because you don't want the answers; you want to stick with your presumptions.

- - - Updated - - -

And how do you identidfy genuine skeptics from evidence to the deniers? Or does one simply label them all as deniers?

An actual skeptic has a legitimate and rational critique of the outstanding theory and why it fails to address his totally legitimate questions, after reviewing all the available evidence.

If you haven't researched that evidence thoroughly, or have not come to a rational conclusion based on that evidence, you're not a skeptic. Skepticism is, to repeat for emphasis, about asking questions, in search answers. If you're not reading the research and disputing that it's legitimate, that's the opposite of asking questions. It's just closed-minded denial.

[therayeffect]

And how do you identidfy genuine skeptics from evidence to the deniers? Or does one simply label them all as deniers? Regardless of how concrete partictular theories may be, there are always genuine skeptics and ideas that seem far fetched when they reach the ears of the communitty.

Skeptics review the evidence and point out counterevidence. Deniers simply ignore the evidence and think something else. It's pretty obvious people who think that climate change isn't happening are deniers.

[s_bushido]

You're skeptical of a theory like a scientist should be?

YOU MUST BE PRO POLLUTION!

There's being skeptical...and then there's misinterpreting the data, misrepresenting the findings, and misquoting the scientists.