The argument from authority is the only argument climate alarmists are willing to make these days–when is the last time you saw one of them sharing a podium with a climate realist?–so this survey, reported by James Taylor of Forbes represents a significant nail in the alarmist coffin:
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 and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “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.”
The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
What I refer to as the “global warming theory” is properly denominated “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.” Alarmists constantly pull a bait and switch by claiming that nearly all climate scientists “believe in global warming.” But what does that mean? The only proposition on which there is anything like unanimity is that it is warmer now than during the depths of the Little Ice Age–an utterly trivial proposition. Those who demand draconian action on the climate must go far beyond this: they must argue that 1) the Earth is warming at an alarming if not unprecedented rate, and will continue to warm significantly in the future; 2) that warming will have catastrophic consequences; 3) the warming is caused primarily if not exclusively by human activity; and 4) there are some practical measures that humans can take to prevent future warming from occurring. It is clear that only a minority of scientists in the relevant fields believe that all of those propositions are true.