Engineers and geoscientists are overwhelmingly skeptical of IPCC and global warming alarmism

The APEGA is the Alberta Canada's regulatory body for the disciplines of engineering, geology, and geophysics. It commissioned two economics researchers, Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer, to study the opinions of its members on global warming and the IPCC. Their results, published in Organization Studies (abstract here, and full text here, PDF) found that Alberta's engineers and geoscientists were overwhelmingly skeptical of the IPCC and its global warming alarmism. A mere 36% were classified as Kyoto supporters.  Lefsrud and Meyer break down their results as follows:

• 10% "point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy."  They say "the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable." They "disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life."  This group doubts that "the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate." This group emphasizes that ‘Conservation is always a good idea, but spending money without any real understanding of what the value you will be getting is always a bad idea.’
• 17% conclude that "climate change as both human- and naturally caused." This group consider "climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life." Like other groups, they "are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling." 
• 5% believe that "climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life."  This group is "also sceptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate."
• 24% believe that "changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth."  They say, for example, that 'global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ This group "strongly disagree[s] that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives."
  
• 36% think climate change is "a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life." This group supports Kyoto.

The authors of this study, Lefsrud and Meyer, are clearly supporters of global warming alarmism: their use of the term "denier," for example, is a dead giveaway of this.  Also, the bias was apparently obviously enough that they reported that respondents called their survey "left wing/liberal."  The surveys results must have been particularly disappointing for them.

Even more embarrassing for the alarmists, it was found that Kyoto supporters were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government."   In other words, the believers in the IPCC were primarily the young and inexperienced.  They also typically worked for the government.

They tried to blame the results on the biases of those employed in in Alberta's oil and gas industry.   But, even among government workers, global warmings strongest supporters, only 45% were in the "comply with Kyoto" group.

Global warmists claim widespread support but you rarely see detailed surveys like this.  These results are why.

Hat tip: WattsUpWithThat.

PREVIOUSLY on support for global warming:
•Study: those most knowledgable about science are least fooled by climate alarmists
•It is never too cold for a Climate Crisis Rally
•Science versus the UN: 125 scientists expose UN's fraudulent claims
•Global warming hypocrite of the day is Arnold