A Guest submission for
Dialogues on Global Warming
RE: Making a scam work;
Considering the clever subterfuge being
employed by man-made climate change deniers we need to consider the supposed
legitimacy of those who deny man's culpability. And since we are apparently
having more and more, intense, and extreme weather around the world, it is
particularly interesting that Global Warming deniers have been ramping up their
game in an effort to deny any significant dangers caused by the vast release of
Co2 into our worldwide environment.
One article about a “peer-reviewed” study
that was published in the 2-14-13 issue of Forbes claimed that a peer
reviewed, (survey) determined that a majority of scientists remain skeptical
about the proposition that global warming posses a huge threat to mankind, and,
also that, valid research about this threat, fails to affirm a need for urgency
regarding climate change. But interestingly, the study was done by the APEGA,
or the Association of Professional Engineering and Geoscientists of
Alberta, and wouldn't you know—the professionals in that survey were
heavily representative of Geologists, which are the least likely scientists to
affirm the dangers of man's role in climate change.
In scientific terms, a survey is really
nothing more than a glorified poll lacking real controls and objective
methodology. Furthermore a genuine Study, found that 97 percent of actively
publishing earth scientists agreed that human activities are changing global
temperatures. But apparently, since the study cited in Forbes was authored by
Lianne M. Lefsrud at the University of Canada, and, Renate
E. Meyer, a professor of economics from The University of economics
in Austria, who also studied at The Copenhagen Businesses School in Denmark, the Forbes study
was heavily representative of Geologists working in the oil industry
categorized as “economic geologists,” who study geology primarily to examine
its role in commercial applications—you guessed it—this last group tends to be
the most skeptical of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. So how
objective is a survey that's conclusion highlights scientists who already doubt
man's role in global warming? And how strange that scientists working for the
advancement of oil interests in Canada,
might be biased—Ya think?
The long study citing their opinions is
also full of largely unintelligible ten dollar words, that are confusing to
even the most intelligent among us. And the APEGA sponsored study itself,
admitted that its methodology represented “a convenience, (non-probability)
sample, of self-selected respondents, similar to the general APEGA membership.”
Furthermore although the survey was sent to 40,000 members of the APEGA, only
1077 completed surveys were received—just 2.69% of the total!
Here is one paragraph from page nine of
that lengthy (30 plus page) “study,” which illustrates the convoluted language
and terminology used:
Data analysis“From our research question, we developed theoretically informed coding categories based upon a review of the identity, framing, professional competency, and legitimation literatures to heuristically circumscribe the discursive construction of expertise. As we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0 in an iterative manner.”
Wikipedia's Online dictionary defines
some of these words including;
1. Heuristically: A heuristic method such as one using a mathematical algorithm that solves a problem more quickly, but is not as certain to arrive at an optimal solution. 2.Discursive: (A) to digress from the main point; rambling. (B) A philosophy using reason and argument rather than intuition. 3.Iterative: Of a procedure that involves repetition of steps to achieve the desired outcome. In computing this may involve a mechanism such as a loop.
So, aside from the fact that conventional
climate scientists, as well as all other kinds of scientists have (always)
relied on reason and logic more than intuition, and that the words
“legitimation,” and, “literatures,” are not really used very commonly—If we
included the definitions of all of these questionable terms, including those of
the more common words, “circumscribe,” and, “theoretically,” we might end up
with a paragraph which reads something like this:
“From our research question, we develop coding based on categorical guesses, reviewing identity, framing, professional competency, (I.E. the ability of professionals to determine results based on accuracy and legitimate knowledge) and (literatures?) which legitimizes such research and then uses mathematical methods to arrive at a quick solution that is not certain to be the best answer. Our methodology which circles around in a rambling digression from the main point in order to establish the self proclaimed expertise used in our survey, is based on facts, not intuition. And, as we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0. in a procedure including repetitive steps to achieve the desired outcome by using a computing loop.”
If you ask me this is nothing but a
pseudo-intellectual application of jargon to justify studies which are rife
with vagueness and which lack real credibility due to institutional bias!
The fact remains that without giving
undue credit to (fox guarding the hen house surveys), that commonly advance the
special interests of big oil and other Co2 producing companies, 97% of actively
publishing climate scientists remain convinced about man's primary role in
global warming.
And, getting back to that article about
this study in Forbes, posted by “James Taylor,” (a contributor), is it
any wonder that Forbes includes a
disclaimer written in extremely fine print, stating that: “Opinions expressed
by Forbes contributors are their own?”
Peter W. Johnson
Superior,
WI
