subgenius wrote:canpakes wrote:You can’t expect subs to actually read his own links. ; )
I read it, and the point stands.
From the study -
“...we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.”
My followup: It’s a touch ironic that a poster firmly identifying as ‘on the right’ would post this, in a ‘Science and Honesty’ thread, as a defense that the overall scientific community was reaching these conclusions, as opposed to a specific group within it whose livelihood is at stake in the debate.
subgenius wrote:Ironic? Only you would dismiss a cardiologist's opinion because his livelihood is at stake if you don't get heart diseases....why would anyone listen to a medical doctor when the rug doctor has a more objective and non-conflicting opinion.
Yes, ironic indeed.
Funny that you were punked by your own source. Let’s look at what you opened with:
From 5 years ago:
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.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... ng-crisis/
It seems like the majority of scientists are skeptical of IPCC modeling etc. I find Res Ispa's charge of climate change being "politicized" a bit ironic because it seems that Res's position is the position guilty of just that....perhaps.
If your argument is that “the majority of scientists are skeptical of IPCC modeling” then you are wrong if you’re trying to make an argument about any population of scientists outside of a small slice of professionals working in the petroleum industry in Alberta. Because you didn’t bother to read the study, you presented this dishonestly. Either that, or you knew that the link referred to a hopelessly small slice of folks whose livelihood depends on selling petroleum products, but passed it off as some sort of opinion from a more diverse source.
You were either playing the liar, or the fool. Either way, trying to save face now won’t work.