<blockquote>
  <p>I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. You can read all about it in the blog post <a href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/" rel="noreferrer">
James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees</a>.</p>

<p>In short, the original paper was designed to test the view of "professional geologists", which in this case are members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. The vast majority of them work in the fossil fuel industry. Therefore, those are people whose livelihood depends on the extraction of fossils fuels. This is not exactly the most unbiased crowd...</p>

<p>The article by James Taylor is spinning the original study into claiming that it applies to all geoscientists. The original authors of the study actually replied to Taylor's article saying:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although
  our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions,
  it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …”
  or “scientists don’t believe …”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(This is taken from a secondary source <a href="https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/02/18/heartland-institute-taylor-makes-false-claims-about-new-study/" rel="noreferrer">here</a>)</p>

<p>In short, the article is not <em>from</em> "Forbes" (<em>i.e.</em>, presenting the opinion of Forbes magazine). It was published <em>in</em> Forbes, but written by a lying climate denier. He has misinterpreted the original study, as evident by two independent analyses and by the reply of the authors themselves.</p>

<p>So to answer your question:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Does this peer-reviewed study contradict the accepted position that climate change is real?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This peer-reviewed study does not contradict anything. Climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by all scientists. What this peer-reviewed study shows is that those who deny the realities of climate change are those employed by the fossil fuel industry, particularly people in top management positions.</p>

<p>Also, quoting myself from the comments:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The study correctly showed that people employed by the fossil fuel
  industry tend to disagree that climate change is anthropogenic. The
  Forbes article generalised this to all scientists. This is wrong. The
  authors of the study said this is wrong.</p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<p>I will finish with some anecdotes. I am a geoscientist at a top Australian University. Every single one of the scientists here accept the climate change is a major threat to modern human civilisation as we know it. In a previous university where many people were involved with fossil fuel research, people accepted the realities of climate change. They were involved with the research because they either tried to find better ways of fossil fuels (realising that renewables are not there yet, and nuclear is unfortunately not an option), or because they have to pay their rent and feed their children. None denied that climate change is real, and none denied that the fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of it. We geoscientists all understand that the major driving force of the fossil fuel industry and climate change denialism is political, financial (usually old white rich men who don't care about anything but their own monetary benefit) and not scientific.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T13:45:31.987Z
"Climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by all scientists." - Can I have a source for this claim? I also find the usage of 'fossil fuel' industry, a type of ad hominem, and a reference to a blog to be a dubious refutement, because the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN. He was an energy tycoon involved in the 'food for oil' scandal, for those unaware.
SE Does Not Like Dissent
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T14:07:45.223Z
@SSight3 of course. Here, have three different sources! [one](http://www.jamespowell.org/) [two](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107) [three](https://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO030002). Thank you for asking.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T15:46:14.173Z
Also I might add, however, you've committed a similar fallacy, as you gave me, in your second link, a reference talking about "climate scientists" rather than "all scientists" per your original claim. It's unclear what type of scientists the first link refers to, as it's a literature study (I presume it only covers scientists talking about AGW given that's what it basically searched for; which again, wouldn't be all scientists). A more accurate statement would be 'A majority of scientists who talk about AGW agree there's climate change'.
SE Does Not Like Dissent
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T15:48:39.407Z
@SSight3 why does it matter? The opinion of climate scientists is the one that matters. Just as you wouldn’t trust a climate scientist to design an oil rig, you shouldn’t trust a petroleum engineer who dismisses ACC.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T15:52:18.117Z
Because it's more accurate. By saying "all scientists" you give the false and incorrect impression to the general public that a scientist of any type agrees, when in reality it is only climate scientists, so naturally, when non-climate scientists disagree (which you admit they do), your statement is correctly found as being false.
SE Does Not Like Dissent
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T15:57:44.247Z
@SSight3 no, I don’t agree. What I agree with, is that people employed by the fossil fuel industry, some of which are scientists, disagree with ACC. Apart from that, my anecdotal experience from several scientific fields and different countries, is that all scientists (including non-climate scientists) accept ACC.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T16:06:40.350Z
@SSight3 you are more that welcome to ask a new question about it in the appropriate SE site.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T16:15:11.370Z
"In short, the article is not from "Forbes". It was published in Forbes" You don't explain what the difference is, and I don't see in the original question the "from Forbes" wording.  "but written by a lying climate denier." You should concentrate on explaining what the author has said that allegedly is incorrect, rather than on personal attacks.
Acccumulation
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T18:10:13.677Z
@SSight3 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-battle-over-the-meaning-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/

The American Physical Society (APS) has “overwhelmingly rejected” a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming.
paulj
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T19:18:52.537Z
@SSight3: Your claim (in the first comment) that "the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN" is absolutely wrong.  The first work on global warming was done by Svante Arrhenius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius and published around the turn of the 20th century, decades before the UN existed.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T20:04:08.320Z
I'm amazed no one has yet brought up Harvey and Galen and the dangers of relying upon a preponderance of agreement among scientists.  But it doesn't matter, because *pollution* is unarguably a bad thing and we can push for its reduction and/or eradication without falling into the political maelstrom surrounding "climate change."
Wildcard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T23:55:43.453Z
@Gimelist - Strictly speaking the agreement of climate scientists is *not* what matters, it's just that this agreement is an indicator of the extensive research they've done establishing anthropogenic climate change, which *is* what matters.
Obie 2.0
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-30T02:14:27.107Z
@Obie2.0, I think you missed my point.  That regardless of climate change, *pollution is bad*, and that it's a mistake to stress climate change while pushing for environmental improvements because it's become such a political football.
Wildcard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-30T09:41:03.000Z
Re *In short, the original paper was designed to test the view of "professional geologists"* -- Better: the original paper was designed to test the views of engineers, managers, and geologists who work in the field of extracting oil from tar sands in Alberta, CA. The vast majority (84%) of the people surveyed were engineers.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-30T22:38:01.777Z
@Acccumulation Forbes has a section of their website called "sites" that's similar to a hosted blogging platform. Anything at forbes.com/sites isn't journalism produced by or vetted by the magazine; it's unmoderated content by a contributor.
jeffronicus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T15:45:36.027Z
If livelihood is a good criterion for bias, then let livelihood be a good criterion for bias!!!  You can't really mean that livelihood is a good criterion for bias, can you?
elliot svensson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-23T21:00:48.160Z
As an anecdotal backup, here in my university in Brazil (which has one of the most renowned geology courses of the country) global warming denialism is rampant. I have in fact heard from a paleoclimatology teacher that 'geologists make the three percent _"skeptics"_'.
Matheus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T10:12:29.980Z
2019-01-31T12:22:30.153Z
2019-01-31T12:22:30.153Z
Gimelist
<p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#5b43c8474c7c" rel="noreferrer">This</a> Forbes article from 2013 (archive link <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190126222459/https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/" rel="noreferrer">here</a>) with the headline <strong>"Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"</strong> gets brandied around a lot. It states that </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also, 14% of the respondents replied that :</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant
  public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The article is reporting the paper Lefsrud and Meyer (2012) "<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612463317" rel="noreferrer">Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change</a>", Organization Studies, 33(11), pp. 1477–1506.</p>

<p>I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere, and (if the information is misleading), how can a layperson recognize that, given that its published in such a renowned magazine.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-29T18:28:32.440Z
Perhaps this is better over at the [Skeptics SE?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/)
BruceWayne
<climate-change><climate-models>
Does this peer-reviewed study (referenced in Forbes) contradict the accepted position that climate change is real?
Daud
# Does this peer-reviewed study (referenced in Forbes) contradict the accepted position that climate change is real?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-01-29)

[This](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#5b43c8474c7c) Forbes article from 2013 (archive link [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20190126222459/https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/)) with the headline **"Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"** gets brandied around a lot. It states that

> 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.

Also, 14% of the respondents replied that :

> “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant
> public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

The article is reporting the paper Lefsrud and Meyer (2012) "[Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change](https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612463317)", Organization Studies, 33(11), pp. 1477–1506.

I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere, and (if the information is misleading), how can a layperson recognize that, given that its published in such a renowned magazine.

**Tags:** climate-change, climate-models

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Perhaps this is better over at the [Skeptics SE?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-01-29. Score: 41 | Accepted answer

> I want to know if that article has been refuted anywhere

Yes. You can read all about it in the blog post [James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/).

In short, the original paper was designed to test the view of "professional geologists", which in this case are members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. The vast majority of them work in the fossil fuel industry. Therefore, those are people whose livelihood depends on the extraction of fossils fuels. This is not exactly the most unbiased crowd...

The article by James Taylor is spinning the original study into claiming that it applies to all geoscientists. The original authors of the study actually replied to Taylor's article saying:

> First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although
> our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions,
> it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …”
> or “scientists don’t believe …”

(This is taken from a secondary source [here](https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/02/18/heartland-institute-taylor-makes-false-claims-about-new-study/))

In short, the article is not *from* "Forbes" (*i.e.*, presenting the opinion of Forbes magazine). It was published *in* Forbes, but written by a lying climate denier. He has misinterpreted the original study, as evident by two independent analyses and by the reply of the authors themselves.

So to answer your question:

> Does this peer-reviewed study contradict the accepted position that climate change is real?

This peer-reviewed study does not contradict anything. Climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by all scientists. What this peer-reviewed study shows is that those who deny the realities of climate change are those employed by the fossil fuel industry, particularly people in top management positions.

Also, quoting myself from the comments:

> The study correctly showed that people employed by the fossil fuel
> industry tend to disagree that climate change is anthropogenic. The
> Forbes article generalised this to all scientists. This is wrong. The
> authors of the study said this is wrong.

---

I will finish with some anecdotes. I am a geoscientist at a top Australian University. Every single one of the scientists here accept the climate change is a major threat to modern human civilisation as we know it. In a previous university where many people were involved with fossil fuel research, people accepted the realities of climate change. They were involved with the research because they either tried to find better ways of fossil fuels (realising that renewables are not there yet, and nuclear is unfortunately not an option), or because they have to pay their rent and feed their children. None denied that climate change is real, and none denied that the fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of it. We geoscientists all understand that the major driving force of the fossil fuel industry and climate change denialism is political, financial (usually old white rich men who don't care about anything but their own monetary benefit) and not scientific.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: "Climate change is overwhelmingly accepted by all scientists." - Can I have a source for this claim? I also find the usage of 'fossil fuel' industry, a type of ad hominem, and a reference to a blog to be a dubious refutement, because the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN. He was an energy tycoon involved in the 'food for oil' scandal, for those unaware.  
> **username_2**: @SSight3 of course. Here, have three different sources! [one](http://www.jamespowell.org/) [two](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107) [three](https://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO030002). Thank you for asking.  
> **username_3**: Also I might add, however, you've committed a similar fallacy, as you gave me, in your second link, a reference talking about "climate scientists" rather than "all scientists" per your original claim. It's unclear what type of scientists the first link refers to, as it's a literature study (I presume it only covers scientists talking about AGW given that's what it basically searched for; which again, wouldn't be all scientists). A more accurate statement would be 'A majority of scientists who talk about AGW agree there's climate change'.  
> **username_2**: @SSight3 why does it matter? The opinion of climate scientists is the one that matters. Just as you wouldn’t trust a climate scientist to design an oil rig, you shouldn’t trust a petroleum engineer who dismisses ACC.  
> **username_3**: Because it's more accurate. By saying "all scientists" you give the false and incorrect impression to the general public that a scientist of any type agrees, when in reality it is only climate scientists, so naturally, when non-climate scientists disagree (which you admit they do), your statement is correctly found as being false.  
> **username_2**: @SSight3 no, I don’t agree. What I agree with, is that people employed by the fossil fuel industry, some of which are scientists, disagree with ACC. Apart from that, my anecdotal experience from several scientific fields and different countries, is that all scientists (including non-climate scientists) accept ACC.  
> **username_2**: @SSight3 you are more that welcome to ask a new question about it in the appropriate SE site.  
> **username_4**: "In short, the article is not from "Forbes". It was published in Forbes" You don't explain what the difference is, and I don't see in the original question the "from Forbes" wording.  "but written by a lying climate denier." You should concentrate on explaining what the author has said that allegedly is incorrect, rather than on personal attacks.  
> **username_5**: @SSight3 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-battle-over-the-meaning-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/  The American Physical Society (APS) has “overwhelmingly rejected” a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming.  
> **username_6**: @SSight3: Your claim (in the first comment) that "the concept of global warming was proposed by Maurice Strong at the UN" is absolutely wrong.  The first work on global warming was done by Svante Arrhenius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius and published around the turn of the 20th century, decades before the UN existed.  
> **username_7**: I'm amazed no one has yet brought up Harvey and Galen and the dangers of relying upon a preponderance of agreement among scientists.  But it doesn't matter, because *pollution* is unarguably a bad thing and we can push for its reduction and/or eradication without falling into the political maelstrom surrounding "climate change."  
> **username_8**: @username_2 - Strictly speaking the agreement of climate scientists is *not* what matters, it's just that this agreement is an indicator of the extensive research they've done establishing anthropogenic climate change, which *is* what matters.  
> **username_7**: @username_8, I think you missed my point.  That regardless of climate change, *pollution is bad*, and that it's a mistake to stress climate change while pushing for environmental improvements because it's become such a political football.  
> **username_9**: Re *In short, the original paper was designed to test the view of "professional geologists"* -- Better: the original paper was designed to test the views of engineers, managers, and geologists who work in the field of extracting oil from tar sands in Alberta, CA. The vast majority (84%) of the people surveyed were engineers.  
> **username_10**: @username_4 Forbes has a section of their website called "sites" that's similar to a hosted blogging platform. Anything at forbes.com/sites isn't journalism produced by or vetted by the magazine; it's unmoderated content by a contributor.  
> **username_11**: If livelihood is a good criterion for bias, then let livelihood be a good criterion for bias!!!  You can't really mean that livelihood is a good criterion for bias, can you?  
> **username_12**: As an anecdotal backup, here in my university in Brazil (which has one of the most renowned geology courses of the country) global warming denialism is rampant. I have in fact heard from a paleoclimatology teacher that 'geologists make the three percent _"skeptics"_'.  

---

