What consensus was that?
Here’s what we are told: There is a global warming consensus. Everybody knows the skeptics are a tiny minority and paid off by big oil--the same big oil that is raking in tons of money via ethanol driven by warming scare.
Now precisely how do we know there is a consensus? What is offered as proof that it exists other than the mere assertion?
Some limited surveys were done of individuals in the related fields and none of them showed a consensus. But what I find odd is that the proponents of the “consensus” haven’t been in the forefront of polling experts to prove the consensus exists. They seem to think that their word alone is sufficient.
One scientific body has now polled its 51,000 members. That was the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. They were pleased to get back almost 1,100 surveys. That is sufficient response so that the findings are an accurate portrayal of this organization’s members.
The Edmonton Journal reports: “Only about one in three Alberta each scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified....”
The “consensus” theory attributes warming to human activity. But this poll found that only 26% of the members actually held that view while 27% were “blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.”
The paper also reported: “A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’”
The executive director of this group, Neil Windsor, said the results were not surprising to him: “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”
Labels: global warming