Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have just published the findings of a survey conducted with practicing climate scientists. The survey was conducted in 2008 with 379 climate scientists who had published papers or were employed in climate research institutes and dealt with their confidence in models, the IPCC and a variety of other topics. The survey findings are here: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf
Most of the questions were asked using a Likert Scale, which most of you have probably used in filling out one of the numerous online surveys that are on almost any website. “A set of statements was presented to which the respondent was asked to indicate his or her level of agreement or disagreement, for example, 1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree.
The value of 4 can be considered as an expression of ambivalence or impartiality or, depending on the nature of the question posed, for example, in a question posed as a subjective rating such as “How much do you think climate scientists are aware of the information that policy makers incorporate into their decision making process?”, a value of 4 is no longer a measure of ambivalence, but rather a metric.”
The total number of respondents is large enough to make statistically significant statements about the population of similarly qualified climate scientists, and the response rate to the invitations is in line with surveys conducted among academics and professionals. What that means is that we can be fairly confident that if we conducted a census of all such scientists the answers would not be very different to what is found in the survey’s findings.
Typically in a commercial survey, analysts would group the top two responses and report on the percentages of respondents that ticked box 6 or 7 on this scale. Using that procedure here makes it clear that there are areas where scientists are not completely confident in what is being preached–and that they don’t like some of the preachers. In fact, let’s start with the opinion of climate scientists about those scientists, journalists and environmental activists who present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts.
The survey’s question read, “Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a popular format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public. How much do you agree with this practice?”
Less than 5% agreed strongly or very strongly with this practice. Actually 56% disagreed strongly or very strongly. Joe Romm, Tim Lambert, Michael Tobis–are you listening? The scientists don’t like what you are doing.
And not because they are skeptics–these scientists are very mainstream in their opinions about climate science and are strong supporters of the IPCC. Fifty-nine percent (59%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “The IPCC reports are of great use to the advancement of climate science.” Only 6% disagreed. And 86.5% agreed or strongly agreed that “climate change is occurring now” and 66.5% agreed or strongly agreed that future climate “will be a result of anthropogenic causes.”
Even so, there are areas of climate science that some people want to claim is settled, but where scientists don’t agree.
Only 12% agree or strongly agree that data availability for climate change analysis is adequate. More than 21% disagree or strongly disagree.
Only 25% agree or strongly agree that “Data collection efforts are currently adequate,” while 16% disagree or strongly disagree.
Perhaps most importantly, only 17.75% agree or strongly agree with the statement, “The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is adequate.” And equal percentage disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Only 22% think atmospheric models deal with hydrodynamics in a manner that is adequate or very adequate. Thirty percent (30%) feel that way about atmospheric models’ treatment of radiation, and only 9% feel that atmospheric models are adequate in their treatment of water vapor–and not one respondent felt that they were ‘very adequate.’
And only 1% felt that atmospheric models dealt well with clouds, while 46% felt they were inadequate or very inadequate. Only 2% felt the models dealt adequately with precipitation, and 3.5% felt that way about modeled treatment of atmospheric convection.
For ocean models, the lack of consensus continued. Only 20% felt ocean models dealt well with hydrodynamics, 11% felt that way about modeled treatment of heat transport in the ocean, 6.5% felt that way about oceanic convection, and only 12% felt that there exists an adequate ability to couple atmospheric and ocean models.
Only 7% agree or strongly agree that “The current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of turbulence,” and only 26% felt that way about surface albedo. Only 8% felt that way about land surface processes, and only 11% about sea ice.
And another shocker–only 32% agreed or strongly agreed that the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases emitted from anthropogenic sources.
As Judith Curry has been noting over at her weblog, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the building blocks of climate science. The scientists know this. The politicians, propagandists and the converted acolytes haven’t gotten the message. If this survey does not educate them, nothing will.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Consensus” is a purely political word – it has no place in science at all.
As long as we are talking about “consensus” we talking about politics and nothing else.
There appears to an inconistency in the respondents.
On the one hand we have, “86.5% agreed or strongly agreed that ‘climate change is occurring now’ and 66.5% agreed or strongly agreed that future climate ‘will be a result of anthropogenic causes.'”
On the other hand we have the response that indicate a strong lack of confidence in the key feedbacks that go to support the above statement: the cloud-water vapor feedbacks.
Without confidence in the weay the feedbacks are dealt with, how can there be confidence in the role of humans in future climaet change?
Heisenberg strikes again!
Or is it indeed Heisenberg? I’m uncertain.
I liked this article much better than your last posting I read. I also really enjoyed you and Steven’s CRU Tape Letters book. Thanks for you time and effort.
“If this survey does not educate them, nothing will.”
Nothing will. It isn’t about science or climate for them. Those are just smoke screens for the philosophical, political, and economic perspectives of those people.
Their insecurity doesn’t stop them from calling for a total clampdown on our energy infrastructure, though… A majority supports the IPCC’s “findings”, after all.
The section “Assessment of State of Science” is very revealing. Most opinions are in tht 50-50 range, except effect of clouds and precipitation. Radiation is understood to be well understood but I disagree with the convection result; convection is a VERY difficult thing to model in a tea-cup, let alone a planet’s atmosphere.
I agree that radiation is well understood, because it is the simplest thing to model …. it assumes a spherical horse.
From page 9;
“The survey employed a non-probability convenience sample.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprobability_sampling
“Sampling is the use of a subset of the population to represent the whole population. Probability sampling, or random sampling, is a sampling technique in which the probability of getting any particular sample may be calculated. Nonprobability sampling does not meet this criterion and should be used with caution. Nonprobability sampling techniques cannot be used to infer from the sample to the general population. Any generalizations obtained from a nonprobability sample must be filtered through one’s knowledge of the topic being studied. Performing nonprobability sampling is considerably less expensive than doing probability sampling, but the results are of limited value.”
“Examples of nonprobability sampling include:
Convenience, Haphazard or Accidental sampling – members of the population are chosen based on their relative ease of access. To sample friends, co-workers, or shoppers at a single mall, are all examples of convenience sampling.
…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convenience_sampling
“Accidental sampling is a type of nonprobability sampling which involves the sample being drawn from that part of the population which is close to hand. That is, a sample population selected because it is readily available and convenient. The researcher using such a sample cannot scientifically make generalizations about the total population from this sample because it would not be representative enough. For example, if the interviewer was to conduct such a survey at a shopping center early in the morning on a given day, the people that he/she could interview would be limited to those given there at that given time, which would not represent the views of other members of society in such an area, if the survey was to be conducted at different times of day and several times per week. This type of sampling is most useful for pilot testing.”
Nuff said.
And all this was pre Climategate, pre Amazongate, pre Anthony’s report on surface stations and pre IAC review.
Similar to the point made by the IAC, there’s a lot of uncertainty about the detail that magically turns into confidence when the bigger picture is presented.
I’d be very interested to see what different departments make of each other’s science and their own.
only 32% agreed or strongly agreed that the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough
===============
I’m really surprised at that. 1/3 of them think they are smarter than they really are….
This survey was taken in 2008. Since then we have witnessed Climategate and the flood of IPCC errors. Is there anyone here who thinks the survey would still show these results? I don’t; I think the skepticism already present in 2008 would rise significantly in 2010. Consensus? Not so much.
This may be the worst summary of data I have ever seen. You might want to go back to the source data and recalculate some of your points above. Also, the method by which you discard respondents answering “4”, or “5” is a little strange.
Only 25% agree or strongly agree that “Data collection efforts are currently adequate,” while 16% disagree or strongly disagree.
As an example, the above was not the question asked. Secondly, 16% is not correct even by the incorrect way you are interpreting the data.
This whole analysis should be re-written and then double-checked for math and a little more time spent on what the different responses indicate in relation to the question asked.
crap, I meant 25% is not the correct total, not 16%.
After looking at the text on pages 9-11 it would appear that the use of the term “convenience sampling” is a misnomer or somewhat misleading as the selection criteria is a closer fit to Judgmental sampling or Purposive sampling;
“The researcher chooses the sample based on who they think would be appropriate for the study. This is used primarily when there is a limited number of people that have expertise in the area being researched.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprobability_sampling
However, this does not change the nature of the survey one iota, and still casts serious doubts on the statistical accuracy of said survey results in total.
Also, while you posted a link to the original survey results, it would appear that most of the text above was “cherry picked” and does not give an entirely objective overview of the ENTIRETY of the survey results over all subject catagories.
Everyone should download and read the PDF and judge for themselves firsthand PRIOR to reading the above post’s somewhat limited focus points.
History has shown that the most common reaction one gets from the media and politicians is an overreaction, because that is what makes their worlds go round. These people deal in superlatives, or they do not deal at all. When the superlatives die out, so will the movement; much like it did with Paul Ehrlich’s population bomb scenario. Politicians and reporters have little ability to understand, or the the patience for, the nuanced views of scientists.
Want to make some waves? Change the title of this article from: “Where Consensus Fails – The Science Cannot Be Called ‘Settled’” to “Vast Majority of Climate Scientists Admit to Having ‘No Clue’ About the Impact of Human Emissions!” Now we are speaking their language!
(68% = vast majority. …is not developed enough to provide a reasonable assessment = ‘no clue’.)
The cry is about:
Yes, we have no bananas.
And silence deafens.
===========
They are still at it. An article titled, ‘Arctic Ice in Death Spiral’ by Stephen Healy
quotes Mark Serneze of NSIDC that the Arctic Summer ice will disappear soon.
Meanwhile, there is more of it.
Why should we be pouring over the results of a survey made in 2008? It is worthless.
“The politicians, propagandists and the converted acolytes haven’t gotten the message.”
Some of us have but we need you (all) to keep plugging away at it. You are getting through.
As for the survey; here we have people who’s living is dependant on the continued need for data collection and interpretation (analysis). They seem to be saying “we need more data collection and analysis”. Wha’d ya know?
PS I agree with those posters who intimate, given the timing involved, that it would be interesting to ask again the questions on the veracity of the IPCC
“The politicians, propagandists and the converted acolytes haven’t gotten the message. If this survey does not educate them, nothing will”.
Of course they haven’t gotten the message because they invented the scam and or earn their fortunes and living maintaining it.
And they will do until we are out of money or the risks get too high.
The so called Consensus is an integral part of the AGW scam that rests on at least 7 basic strategies and lies.
1. demonize oil
2. peak oil has arrived
3. CO2 is a powerful green house gas
4. The climate is warming in a unprecedented manner
5. 1.000 scares
6. All scientists agree AGW is real, any (scientific)opposition is useless (consensus)
and public opposition is demonized (by the argument of consensus).
7. Drastic action is needed, a radical change of our life styles, our energy infra structure, Taxes and the introduction of sustainable energy, solar wind, bio fuels and nuclear.
Of course the “inventors” of this scam knew their carefully planned scam long before we started to discuss the subject at the skeptic blogs.
So Thomas Fuller, do you really think you can educate these people, make them change their mind?
Do you really live with the illusion this will bring anything?
Don’t you get the feeling you’re kicking in open doors?
Really I am very pleased there are significant doubts about this scam among scientists but during the past years all of the AGW claims have been debunked and the scam has been unmasked.
But as long as the gravy train continues and government grants exist we have to live with the direct results: wind parks are build, electricity prices are going through the roof, bio ethanol is mixed with gasoline in many countries, food prices are on the rise, 1.2 billion people live from less than 1700 calories per day, the AGW propaganda machinery is running full steam ahead and we have to endure one crazy scheme after another to save our climate.
Right, education is required to wise up and inform the public.
But I am afraid we seriously need to think about much more pressing way’s to stop this fraud before it bankrupts us.
And it’s not education.
Wayne Richards
It probably was .. but maybe not.
Henry, thank you for pointing out the error! Question 11b asked
“Data collection efforts are currently
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
The mean score from all respondents was 3.924
5.12 % answered 1
11.32 % chose 2
That gave a total bottom-two box of 16.44%
11.59% chose 6
1.348% chose 7
That gave a top-two box of 12.93%
Which just makes my point more emphatically.
As for choosing this way to make an analysis, it is very common for topline analyses that need to be done in a very short period of time, which is the situation I faced today. There’s obviously a lot more that can be done, and I hope that Bray and von Storch will publish cross tabulations at some point.
However, focusing on ‘top-two’ and ‘bottom-two’ boxes is an accepted framework for looking at this type of scaled question. Sorry about the math error, though.
Considering that the IPCC managed to get from “We don’t have enough understanding to model climate behaviour” to “The science is settled” in just one report, I am sure that hiring enough PR people can turn this around in time for the next survey.
For Henry. If you go back and look at the mean scores for the questions rather than looking at just the extreme ends of the scale it still doesn’t give the science a thumbs up.
But this is 2 years old. Before Climategate. My guess is that the results are meaningless today. And in any case, I doubt whether a mere survey will educate people.
Ignore the message – attack the messenger. The method of sampling seems to be in line with sentiments expressed round that time, that only those actively publishing in the field of “Climate science” opinions/thoughts mattered.
I seem to recall those sentiments, but now some query the limited sampling to “nuff” the message. Some concrete in that defense methinks!.