But it’s not that simple..

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis – Forbes

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

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 (also known as earth scientists) 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 authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
So what do we take from this?  The easy answer is “this is more evidence that the global warming hysteria is bullshit”.  But it’s not really that simple.  Obviously the article means something, but what specifically?

Science, by it’s nature, is profoundly un-democratic.  Science as a “thing” does not care how many scientists or laymen are on one side of an issue or the other.  Each scientific theory or supposition is a Boolean expression.  It’s either right or it’s wrong.

So what does this article mean in the running argument of whether human beings are Gaia-murdering monsters?  Let’s contrast the survey results above with what we hear from the people on the other side.   Barack Obama tells us that the “science is settled” on anthropomorphic climate-change.  We never hear that statement said by scientists about nearly any other scientific theory or postulate.  We see some of the biggest proponents of climate change profiting immensely from the hysteria that they create, people such as Al Gore.    We see other proponents take extreme positions in regards to the people who are skeptical of anthropomorphic climate-change, people such as David Suzuki (a man I once greatly admired) who have argued for jailing politicians who question anthropomorphic climate-change.  There’s also the problem of the majority of cures for our climate change woes involve greater, centralized authority to global governance and a significant lower standard of living for the lower class of this country.  But the people offering the cures never mention these facts.

There’s numerous other items I could add to that list but the bottom line is: do these facts make the prominent climate-change advocates wrong?  Not necessarily, but it does mean that you should heavily scrutinize their position.  Conversely, it’s easy to be comforted by the fact that a large majority of scientists do not support the idea of impending, human-caused doom.  Perhaps it’s not a bad thing to take a little bit of comfort in that, but perhaps it’s even better to use our own conscience and our own common sense.

We know something is wrong when we see it.   We’ve made enormous progress in limiting the damage we’re doing to the planet, but we still do bad things.  But it’s easy to ignore those bad things when we tune out the zealots completely and as a result,  we still wind up still being manipulated by them, just not the way they intended.  So let’s resist the zealots, but let’s keep an open mind.  Let’s resist attempts to utilize the hysteria for nefarious purposes, but let’s try to correct obvious environmental problems when we see them.  First through private means and then through the government as a last resort.

Most importantly, let’s remember that science doesn’t necessarily care that humans desire a black or white answer to a question.  Science just is.