Most Geoscientists and Engineers are Global Warming skeptics
When researchers Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer asked geoscientists and engineers their opinion about global warming, they discovered that two thirds of them think that the current warming is mostly due to nature.
Most Geoscientists and Engineers are Global Warming skeptics « JoNova
Oddly enough, I have degrees in geology and engineering.
 | gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… |
| gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
Well I am biased but Geologists take the long view and engineers are extremely sensible.
No shock there.
Engineers know how far a model can be of use.
Geologist understand Earth history so they don’t get swayed by exagerated claims of unprecedented whatever…..Also know that CO2 was much higher once and the planet didn’t continue to get hotter and hotter in a feedback fueled, runaway reaction. However, they have been known to pump up claims of gold (or other ore) in them hills, or oil in that formation, etc. The ones dependant on grants and research allocations, understand what to say to get funds to keep their positions. AGW has been the new gold for the past 20 years or so.
Been studying geology since my youth. Not saying how long that is. Never bought into AGW. I prefer UHI.
That’s all good but since the temperature hasn’t risen in at least a decade if not more depending on what temperature set you look at, why do people keep talking about the “current warming” or speak as if temperatures continue to increase? The climate change phenomena is totally Orwellian.
When alarmists refer to “current warming”, they’re talking about starting sometime before the last 15 years or so. As for “continue to increase”, they’re talking about what the models that can’t predict anything are saying.
You’re right about the Orwellian thing.
I looked over this paper a few days ago. The writers are appalling illiterate. It seems that their argument is that different groups of experts have different frames of reference for evaluating evidence. The authors of the paper then rise above these frames in god-like fashion (how they manage to do this when so many experts are subjected to personal biases remains a mystery), and then go on to speculate how the petroleum industry has corrupted their thinking. I kid you not. The paper is that dumb.