Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Don't miss this: Warmist survey of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists finds only 36.3% are warmists, then buries that key result on page 17 of the associated paper

Survey reveals fault lines in views on climate change | Science Codex
Lianne Lefsrud, a PhD student in the Alberta School of Business, surveyed the membership of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta regarding their beliefs on climate change and its causes, and on where responsibility for change rests...Lefsrud noted that while the survey data could lead some to believe that the level of disagreement would prohibit any sort of decision-making or conscious action, she says there were many common points of interest that could be pulled together to establish unity and effect change. She said all the respondents seemed to agree that there was a risk and that there needed to be some sort of action to try to mitigate it [Far be it from me to be critical, but I think she's seriously misrepresenting her own study here].

"It was interesting to see how a coalition could be built and work together to kind of patch up these factions and say, 'OK, so what. Let's set this aside. We all agree it's a risk. We all agree to do something, so let's do something," said Lefsrud. "That was quite a hopeful message to say that we can do something here.
From the actual study, available here: Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
The proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008).
...[From page 17, "Overwhelming nature", 24%; Economic responsibility 9.7%; Comply with Kyoto 36.3%, Regulation Activists 4.7%, Fatalists 17.4%, Disguised 7.9%
24%: "Overwhelming nature" people "believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth"
9.7%: "Economic responsibility" people
 They 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.
36.3 %: Comply with Kyoto
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
4.7%: Regulation activists
Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. Advocates do not significantly vary from the mean in how they consider the magnitude, extent, or time scale of climate change. They are also sceptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate...They believe that the Kyoto Protocol is doomed to failure
17.4%: Fatalists
...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 sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling
7.9% Disguised (I don't see this defined anywhere)]

1 comment:

David Anderson said...

Her comments aren't neutral at all - a scientist doesn't seek to extract "hopefull messages" from their research, the results are what they are.

Another PhD 'scientist' let loose to campaign for a cause.