For years we have been told over and over again that there is a consensus amongst scientists that the earth will turn into an order of those fried kernels of batter that come in your meal when you eat at Long John’s if we don’t abandon fossil fuels and the modern lifestyle that they make possible. Needless to say this has always been a load of bollocks… and low quality bollocks at that.
Anyone in engineering or physics can tell you that amongst people in those professions climatologists are considered to be roughly on a par with phrenologists or sociologists. At the best they may rise to the level of economists (but well below meteorologists) when it comes to the science they claim to practice. Most people in the sciences look askance at any field whose models can’t really predict anything. Indeed, it has always been considered as a mark of incompetence amongst engineers to believe in catastrophic global warming. And for good reason. If I designed speakers (as I used to do for a living) based on models as poor as the ones climatologists use I am fairly certain they would flap languidly in the breeze like the under-flab on some old woman’s arm — all the while making a high pitched, keening sound. That is to say they could only play Madonna songs with any degree of accuracy.
Now there is yet another study out in a peer reviewed journal indicating that there is a consensus on global warming… and it is exactly as we have always known it to be and precisely the opposite of what the press relentlessly touts in their jihad to pin the blame for every snowflake that falls, or fails to fall, to the ground on those who would live free and prosperous lives. The long and the short of it is that only about 36% of engineers and geologists believe we are creating some sort of crisis with our production of CO2. The vast majority do not believe this to be the case.
You can read the study itself here. You will find there is a lot of bias in how the information is presented… as is to be expected with social scientists… who aren’t, after all engaging in any actual science. They are basically just asking questions and attempting to put people into groups which may or may not fit what they believe… but seem helpful to the people conducting the poll for God only knows what reason.
To show you the inherent biases of the study’s authors I give you the following quote from their conclusion:
Although there seems to be consensus that anthropogenic climate change presents a profound global challenge, policy makers and companies have opposed the regulations of GHG emissions
As you can see, even though their study indicated that there was no consensus that there was any challenge posed by AGW at all they could not help but state the opposite in contradiction of their own findings. While this should be unacceptable in any publication of this sort it does oddly lend legitimacy to the findings in that they are obviously at odds with what the authors believe.