Quote:
Originally Posted by preki
Dude you just googled up an article and didn't bother to read the attached study because you don't give a **** what is true, you just wanted to justify your opinion. But I actually did click through and now I'm going to lol at you.
How did they locate their scientists for this "research"? Let's consult the paper.
Quote:
To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.
Yeah dude. They put out a survey in the magazine of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), which (due to Alberta's large shale oil reserves) contains huge numbers of people who work in the petroleum industry. APEGA has 40,000 members and they received 1,077 completed surveys, thus also introducing massive selection bias.
So yeah - turns out when you survey people who largely work in the petroleum industry and you select the 1 in 40 most opinionated of them to do a survey, you get a decent chunk of people who think climate change is alarmism. Or at least you did 5 years ago, in 2013, before we had several more hottest years on record.
This James Taylor guy describes this paper as PEER-REVIEWED, so how was such a poorly-designed study allowed to be published? Because that wasn't what they were studying. From the abstract:
Quote:
This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures.
This is a social sciences paper. It wasn't seeking to give an estimate of the number of scientists who are skeptical of global warming. That's Taylor's doing. Would you agree that the way he presented the paper - as a peer-reviewed estimate - was wilfully dishonest?