[ad_1]
Good opinion
The results of a new study on peer-reviewed organizational studies are published in an article by Forbes. Founded in 1993, the website of the Organization Studies Research Network explains that it "articulates around a common concern and common interest to explore new opportunities in relation to knowledge, culture and change management, in the broader context of the nature and future of organizations. and their impact on modern society. "
The survey surveyed 1,077 geoscientists to find out the current opinion of this large group on how human activities affect our climate.
The largest subset of participants is the "Comply with Kyoto" model. This subgroup of 36% of participants expressed their belief that climate change is happening and that it is not a natural cycle of nature and that humans are the main cause. This result will not surprise the faction of climate change created by the man among us.
The next subgroup is the "Nature is Invasive" faction, at 24%. These scientists believe that climate change is natural and normal, but there is absolutely no agreement that climate change poses a significant public risk and sees no impact on their personal lives.
These two groups, however, represent only 60% of the total.
The "fatalists" follow in third place (17%). They attribute both the human and natural causes of climate change; consider climate change as a lower public risk with little impact on their personal lives; are skeptical about the resolution of the scientific debate on the modeling of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); and think that climate change is only a minor risk. It is said that they hold the following position: "How can we act if research is biased," notes the report.
In fourth place are those of the "economic responsibility" model, at 10% of participants. These Earth scientists "diagnose climate change as natural or anthropogenic," but more than any other group remains convinced that the true cause of climate change is unknown, as nature is constantly changing and so is uncontrollable. They are also unlikely to accept that the scientific debate is settled.
The smallest sub-group consists of "regulatory activists" who, with only 5% of the total, are skeptical about the determination of the scientific debate and also accuse of both natural and human causes.
These results led the author of the Forbes article, James Taylor, to conclude: "Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically eliminate the 36% of scientists who believe that global warming is caused by the # Man and is a serious concern.
Taylor adds, "Now that we have access to in-depth surveys of the scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only many scientists are challenging the global warming crisis, but that these skeptical scientists can indeed form a scientific consensus."
These results should not surprise those who have followed this debate and who do not automatically subscribe to the idea that the use of fossil fuels is at the root of climate change.
"Climate change itself is already definitely refuting climate alarmists who believe that the human use of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming," wrote Peter Ferrara of the Heartland Institute in 2012. at the Seventh International Conference on Climate Change.
"This is because natural climate cycles have already shifted from warming to cooling, as global temperatures have already fallen for more than 10 years and will continue to decline for another two decades or more. "Continued Ferrara.
He drew attention to the fact that temperatures had regularly dropped from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press even predicted a future ice age. Ferrara wrote that ice ages occurred cyclically about 10,000 years ago.
He talks about Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, who "publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decrease by 2010. He made this prediction because he knew that the # The decadal oscillation of the Pacific had become cold in 1999, which political scientists at the UN, the IPCC did not know or did not think significant. "
Easterbrook was right, and the IPCC was wrong, Ferrara notes. And 56% of Earth scientists surveyed say that natural causes are an important factor and perhaps even a more important factor than the use of fossil fuels.
The use of fossil fuels will naturally give way to other methods, when these are able to provide the necessary energy economically and without major disruption.
Until then, we must put an end to climate alarmism and focus on the current problems, such as drug addiction, national debt and illegal immigration.
[ad_2]
Source link