The Sound Of Settled Science – small dead animals

A Survey Of The Perceptions Of Climate Scientists 2013: No Consensus

9 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

They should have surveyed the dentists instead.
Four out of five of them always have an opinion.

This survey didn’t get much response, apparently, but I think the conclusions happen to be valid anyway. There really isn’t much consensus among meteorologists or among weather-conscious members of the general population in either America or Britain, on the key topics of climate change theory. I think it’s fair to say that the balance point at present is something like this: okay there could be slight modification from greenhouse gases but the IPCC has overstated it. Also, we are only in the very early stages of understanding global climate and being able to model any kind of variability (meaning, to make accurate predictions). So unless one wants to toss out the basic principles of science, you just can’t really say that we know enough to draw viable conclusions. The one thing I could point out is that enthusiasm for a “cooling climate” is not overly strong either, the consensus there would be more like an earlier slight warming has halted. This is how I read a rather sluggish debate nowadays, five years ago it was more in favour of the IPCC position than it is today. Five cold winters in Europe have apparently chilled that enthusiasm quite noticeably. I could also say that among operational U.S. meteorologists, there never was much enthusiasm for climate change theory and even some rather stark warming events in 2012 failed to shake that position. The bottom line is, the expert class are too politicized to exercise sound judgement on this issue, and outside that narrow inner sanctum, the rest of informed opinion is very lukewarm. It all adds up to the need for skepticism about the processes of the United Nations rather than the atmosphere. I must say that we know a little more about the UN than the atmosphere so we should perhaps fix that first.

Yes, Peter, and add the fact that treasuries everywhere are low right now, that *taxpayers reject carbon taxes &/or higher cost energy, and it adds up to hard times for the watermelons.
*- the exception doesn’t prove the rule, but BC voters when faced with tax and spend carbon tax tinkerers or green out economic ruin, chose the former.
BTW the warmists would have a field day with this article, arguing it proves their consensus (50% + 1?) exists.

There never was a consensus.
Anecdotally, I could convince myself if I tried that the winter weather in Newfoundland
has improved a little over the past thirty-five years, but God! that’s not saying much!
It still is foul. I could equally convince myself that it hasn’t changed.
It is likely that AGW would have moderated Canada’s climate, with good consequences
to agricultural productivity and the livability of the country, i.e. its ability to support
a substantial population. This does not occur to the watermelons, who are too intent
on saving the world to worry about us. That is why the people who negotiated us into
Kyoto are traitors and should receive the appropriate penalty.

“The authors started with 5,947 (reasonably discovered, mostly senior folks from USA, Germany, and UK) email addresses (culled from earlier surveys), but had to toss 1,456 for invalidity. Only 286 people turned in a survey.”
THAT figure speaks to the urgency with which citizens view catastrophic climate change. If they were really concerned about it,they would have filled out the survey.
At national Newswatch today,former U.S. Ambassador says climate change is a real concern.
http://www.canada.com/technology/environment/Former+ambassador+David+Jacobson+takes+climate/9206793/story.html
We the people have seen through the scam, but the interested parties continue to preach the same garbage, motivated by profits and taxes.

The bottom line is, the expert class are too politicized to exercise sound judgement on this issue, and outside that narrow inner sanctum, the rest of informed opinion is very lukewarm.
good essay, excellent summary.
Energy independence comes from self-reliant individuals who want to use more renewables and less fossil fuels in their daily lives, and to use both more efficiently with less waste and pollution.
Some people don’t want that, which is fine for them.
It has little or nothing to do with one’s religious beliefs about ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’.