Weather Channel and Weather.com: the survey says…..

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, First Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel

Carl Parker, On Camera Meteorologist at the once watchable Weather Channel blogged a response dated March 3 to skeptic criticism of a recent post in which he tries to explain that virtually all scientists agree with him and the network on global warming quotes a survey to support that claim.  I guess the ghost of Heidi Cullen continues to haunt the halls. We had hoped with her departure, sanity or at least some balance would return.

In his post a defensive Parker writes:

Consensus

Now, a couple of you objected to my use of the word consensus, so I looked it up and found this:

a : general agreement
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned

It is I think by any reasonable standard fair to say that if 90% of more than 3100 earth scientists agree on something, that fits the definition of consensus.

….Man’s Culpability

As to the question of what most scientists are saying about man’s culpability, we can return to the University of Illinois study and see that 82% of the respondents agreed that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

Again, this was 3146 scientists, specializing in climatology, meteorology, geochemistry, geophysics, oceanography, geology, hydrology/hydrogeology and paleontology. Of the climatologists, a staggering 97% agreed to the same question…

It’s very difficult for me to understand the disdain for science that exists today. Though we see unequivocal results in surveys, and though this consensus is backed by nearly every major scientific organization, some still see scientists as nefarious and engaged in conspiracy.

Recall, ICECAP, SPPI and Lawrence Solomon posted on this survey. The facts are very different than Parker claims.

The 97% number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response – just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming -quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming – so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage.  They found it – almost – in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.

Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?

I would have answered yes to both questions. Sure we have warmed since the Little Ice Age and man plays a role in changing climate locally through land use and urbanization. The survey was a joke. The Weather channel blog using it to support their advocacy more proof how low the old network and weather.com has fallen.

About these ads
This entry was posted in media. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Weather Channel and Weather.com: the survey says…..

  1. Misterar says:

    All the emerging stories of the persecution meted out to dissent give the lie to the claims of consent.

  2. John Marshall says:

    Statistics can be made to claim anything you want!

  3. Mike Bryant says:

    Interesting that after all the finagling of the survey results, that still 3% of those on the public teat somehow retain enough honesty and integrity to respond to the thrust of the questions instead of the deceptive words…
    I take some hope even in this number…

  4. mrpkw says:

    Excellent break down of the “survey”

  5. Anthony

    Thanks for posting this. I recall the earlier Solomon post, and repeating it here is a timely reminder. You are right, most of us would have answered “Yes” to both questions in the poll

    It reminds me of staff surveys created by corporates to assess employees’ satisfaction. The questions are framed in such a fashion that the corporation emerges looking like the dream employer. Surveys of this kind would be jokes were their purposes less sinister.

    If Parker insists that consensus has any relevance to science and wants to talk about scientific consensus, he could do worse than consult the Climate Depot:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

  6. Micky H Corbett says:

    This is slightly off subject but relevant to the bias shown in the survey. It’s a Euronews piece about the ESA planck mission and what information can be gleaned from the Cosmic Microwave Background.

    At the end, one of the guys (speaking French) talks about the delicacy of projecting a scientist’s beliefs onto unknown quantities and areas of research that touch on theological questions, much like what happens in climate science. And the dangers of doing this. It’s quite an eloquent way that he says it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPuhJ98VjoA&feature=fvsr

  7. Paul R says:

    John Marshall says:
    March 4, 2011 at 4:12 am
    Statistics can be made to claim anything you want!

    That’s actually been statistically proven in a survey somewhere.

  8. marcoinpanama says:

    Serious survey research is a scientific endeavor. To claim that this survey is valid is as looney as sticking your finger out the window and proclaiming that it is hot, thus the climate is changing. Everyone involved knows (or should know) that self-selected samples typical of online surveys are utterly worthless. Not to mention that the questions themselves are useless, as Anthony points out. Remember the fun we all had with the moronic Scientific American online survey?

    To do a scientifically valid survey, one would need first to carefully define (and document) the characteristics of the sample population. Questions need to be carefully crafted to reveal bias in either the questions or the respondents. Then a carefully selected random sample of respondents is chosen. This step alone is fraught with difficulty and peril. Then, those selected need to be contacted and asked if they would be willing to do an interview before they know the topic. When 1200 or so respondents have been interviewed, you can then do the statistical analysis to find out with reasonable confidence what they think about the question at hand.

    For so-called serious climate scientists to admit that they did their “consensus study” with techniques so scientifically amateur that they would rate an F in a first year statistics class calls into question their veracity on every other subject about which they might utter an opinion.

  9. Wade says:

    When I was in college, I had to take a course in statistics. One of the first things we were taught is how to make the stats say what you want. Here is a good example: Suppose an area had 200% population growth in 10 years. You would think it fast growing. Now what if I told you that that area’s population went from 10 to 20 people in that 10 year span. Would you call it fast growing now? For reasons like that, I do not like percentages.

  10. hunter says:

    ‘culpability’ is a term used for criminal activity.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability
    What an informative choice to describe how true believers look at humanity.

  11. Tom in Florida says:

    Figures lie and liars figure, how appropriate.

    “few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate.”
    I have been calling this HIVES, Human Induced Variations in Ecological Systems. It is much more important that we understand and react to this.

  12. Frank K. says:

    I gave up on weather.com after the Heidi Cullen debacle. I wrote them a letter but didn’t receive a reply. Nothing. It was clear to me that they didn’t care about their audience…

  13. Noelle says:

    You do a disservice to the readers here when you cite a published study but do not provide a reference the article itself when it is readily available. Readers should know that it can be found at: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf (typically cited as “Doran 2009.”)

    You write: “Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy.”

    I don’t know why you write “unknown qualifications,” as the Doran 2009 paper includes the following:

    “In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”

    And it would be helpful if you define “orthodoxy.”

  14. SteveE says:

    If you read the article it’s based on though, it’s all well documented. It’s not like the authors were trying to hide anything that 97.4% figure was based on a larger survey.

    They actually suggest this is proof that there is a concencus among those “who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”, but the problem lies with communicating this to the general public who mistakenly beleive there is still a debate of this subject.

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

  15. Richard says:

    “It’s very difficult for me to understand the disdain for science that exists today”…….”some still see scientists as nefarious and engaged in conspiracy”.

    Global Cooling/Global Warming/ Global Climate Change/Anglia emails/Carbon Tax/Carbon Credits/Cow Farts Bad/CO2 Bad/Small Nuclear War Good

    No disdain here.

  16. Les Johnson says:

    Anthony: a good article by Joe.

    Just a thought, but would you consider putting a voting widget on your site, with those two questions?

    I would be curious to see what the voting percentage is on a so called skeptic site.

    [Tips & Notes is the place for suggestions. ~dbs, mod.]

  17. JohnWho says:

    SteveE says:
    March 4, 2011 at 5:30 am
    If you read the article it’s based on though, it’s all well documented. It’s not like the authors were trying to hide anything that 97.4% figure was based on a larger survey.

    They actually suggest this is proof that there is a concencus among those “who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”, …

    And there is a consensus, SteveE – the consensus is that we’ve warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age and that humans can have some impact on the weather.

    That’s it.

    Well, and then there is this:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    I suspect that there is an overwhelming number who agree with that, but it is just a guess on my part.

    (Link – http://www.petitionproject.org/ )

  18. beng says:

    You can’t escape the warmunist propaganda on the wc for 10 seconds. It is contemptible and unwatchable.

  19. Smokey says:

    Paul R says:

    John Marshall says:
    March 4, 2011 at 4:12 am
    Statistics can be made to claim anything you want!

    “That’s actually been statistically proven in a survey somewhere.”

    A corollary: “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”

    ~Karl Popper

    …but it’s easy to speak in a way that is deceptive. That’s what the 97% figure does.

    You couldn’t get 97% of a group to agree that the Pope is Catholic.

  20. SteveE says:

    Smokey says:
    March 4, 2011 at 6:00 am

    You couldn’t get 97% of a group to agree that the Pope is Catholic.

    ————-

    But you could if you ask a group of catholic priests.

    That’s what this survey has done, ask a bunch of climate scientists who are actively publishing peer-reviewed papers on climate change what there opinion is on humans effects global mean temperatures.

  21. G. Karst says:

    Science is Dead! Long live propaganda!

  22. Stephen Richards says:

    Statistics can be made to claim anything you want!

    Not so much statistics although they are very malleable. It’s the way the questions are asked that is most important. I used to write questionnaires in my old life and you can start with the answers you want and then write the questions in a way that those answer will be returned, median.

  23. Stephen Richards says:

    Wade says:
    March 4, 2011 at 4:49 am

    Wade I make that 100% (20-10)/10*100

  24. huh says:

    Global warming is dead! Long live carbon credits!

  25. Doug says:

    I’m quite certain man has caused some warming. I just think the magnitude is that of academic trivia. not global crisis.

  26. Sam Patterson says:

    I addressed this study a few weeks ago. I had similar problems with the wording, so to verify that it was poorly phrased I asked famous ‘skeptical’ climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels to answer the questions. Both of those men answered positively, showing that the study does not convey consensus. Details here:

    http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

  27. Smokey says:

    SteveE,

    You don’t believe the question was a push-poll, designed to get a very high response from 77 carefully selected respondents?

    Wanna buy a bridge? You can collect the tolls every day. I promise.☺

    Only 90% of all respondents agreed that the planet has been warming. How do you explain that relatively low number? These are published climate scientists who can presumably understand a simple question:

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    Face it, that bogus poll was intended for one purpose: pro-AGW propaganda.

  28. Pamela Gray says:

    I also am aware of survey design. Graduate level courses can be found on such topics. Most surveys I have seen do not begin to be capable of providing reliable, valid results. No one, I mean no one, including those who would like to post a survey here, should do so without at least taking time to read up on how to develop high quality surveys and polls.

    Do your homework first. Else you face the red pen and sharp tongue of those ready to cut the validity of your survey or poll to bloody pieces.

  29. Jeff K says:

    You can’t blame baby-faced, misspeak Carl-he seems nice enough but realizes he’s dim as a 40w light bulb and needs to ingratiate himself with the higher-ups, hopes to win the Nobel Prize someday.

  30. Wiglaf says:

    Seems to show the absolute uselessness of arguing consensus regarding any scientific hypothesis. If you need tortured stats to get consensus, then you’re not working with science; you’re vying for money and politics.

  31. T Stone says:

    It is sad but not surprising to see the WC slide into the cognitive dissonant cesspool that is the main stream media. I used to rely on the WC for information as it directly affected my line of work, but found as a resource for pure information it was average to poor. Now I go to the NOAA website for my weather and generally read the discussion as it is as objective a resource I can find. That said, I would think that as a meteorologist, Mr. Parker could come up with a better response to skepticism than to recite poorly defined and manipulated survey results. But that seems to be the only argument they can come up with as a defense for a premise that is based on belief and not knowledge. In my opinion, belief in CAGW is pure intellectual laziness.

  32. SteveE says:

    Smokey says:

    Only 90% of all respondents agreed that the planet has been warming. How do you explain that relatively low number? These are published climate scientists who can presumably understand a simple question:

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    Face it, that bogus poll was intended for one purpose: pro-AGW propaganda.

    ————————

    If you read the article, the 90% figure related to all Earth scientists, including geochemists, geophysicists, paleontologists etc, many of whom don’t work in climate science or study the earth temperature records. It’s not surprising that 10% didn’t think the earth was warming, that’s an opinion derived not through indepth study of the subject matter and data, just what they think based on what they’ve read or heard.

    It’s interesting that of the people who have studied the science and data in great depth and published papers on the subject, 97.4% do agree with the second question; that man is a significant contributing factor to global temperature change.

    Going back the to catholic analogue, if you ask the question do you think that man evolved from apes the priests would say no. However if you asked a group of biologists and paleontologists the vast majority would say yes. You’d get a few who disagree based on religous grounds perhaps, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a concensus.

  33. Bruce Cobb says:

    “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Human activity? Now, I wonder why they used that weasel phrase instead of the real issue, that of human-produced C02? It would be highly ironic if folks thought that UHI, which certainly has a local effect on temperatures could have anything more than a miniscule effect on actual global temps, though it certainly has a profound (and entirely bogus) effect on the temps measured. Of course, some might have been taken in by the very real idea that human activity such as deforestation can be environmentally destructive, and can cause changes in weather patterns, neither of which has much, if anything to do with the question, which was does it significantly affect global temperatures.

  34. Billy Liar says:

    SteveE says:
    March 4, 2011 at 7:22 am

    It would help your case if you could spell ‘consensus’. To me your mis-spelling looks like ‘con – census’ – an entirely appropriate term!

  35. Smokey says:

    SteveE,

    You didn’t even ask how much the bridge would cost. Don’t you have any curiosity??

    Seriously, that push-poll and the 97% figure is simply propaganda, no more and no less. You can believe in it if you like, but I know a push-poll when I see one. Didn’t you even read the article?

    The true believers in the CO2=CAGW conjecture like to trot out that ridiculous 97% number as if it’s reality. It isn’t. You can’t credibly select only 77 cherry-picked respondents to come up with a fantastic number like 97%. Believe it if you want – and you clearly want to believe it. Hey, some folks believe in Scientology, too.

    Anyway, the whole thing misses the central issue: Does CO2 cause planetary harm? That is the conjecture made by true believers in CAGW. And those same people always reject the scientific method. Belief in CAGW and ignoring the scientific method always go hand in hand.

    As a matter of fact, there is no credible evidence that CO2 is anything but a completely harmless and beneficial trace gas. With an almost 40% increase in CO2, there certainly should be at least some measurable damage to the planet if it was harmful. But there is none at all. The only verifiable result of more CO2 is greater agricultural productivity.

    It still amazes me that people believe, with no evidence to support them besides always-inaccurate computer models, that a trace gas comprising only 0.00039 of the atmosphere is going to cause catastrophic runaway global warming. It’s silly beyond belief.

  36. JEM says:

    Its just laziness on TWC’s part and Mr. Parker’s in particular. Obviously, one of two points either he is sneaky smart and in on the scam (maybe he owns some carbon credits he is looking to sell) or he is incredibly dense and uninformed. He is to be read and or listened to with the sole purpose of understanding your opponent with those two options in mind.

    SteveE I understand the words you are using but there is nothing in the poll that was defensible and the questions were asked in order to be used for propaganda – not true opinion. You may be of the opinion that the MMGW is alive and well and serious, but hopefully not because of this survey. It is background noise and worthless. But of course as we have seen, most climate activists (er… scientists, sorry about that) have demonstrated their lack of statistical knowledge such that real statisticians have spotted their flaws miles away.

  37. Noelle says:

    Smokey wrote: “You can’t credibly select only 77 cherry-picked respondents to come up with a fantastic number like 97%. ”

    They are not “cherry-picked.” If you look at Figure 1 on Doran 2009 (that’s my challenge to you to look at that chart and tell us what you think it shows) you see that, the more actively involved in climate research one is, the more likely one is to answer “yes” on the survey responses. Here’s the data from Figure 1 (my % estimates from reading the chart) of how Doran defines becoming more actively involved from the general public to the 77.

    General Public 58%
    Non-publishers/Non-climateologists 75%
    Climateologists 88%
    Active Publishers – All Topics 88%
    Active Publishers – Climate Change 90%
    Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change 97%

    Perhaps you would like to offer alternative definitions of Doran’s six categories that you would define as not cherry picking?

  38. Josh Grella says:

    I once had a college professor teach us a lesson about survey questions. He used a show of hands to determine how many of us initially thought a particular set of questions could be used to gain meaningful results. He then asked us to each answer the questions (all yes/no, true/false), but to also give our reason for answering the way we did. The answers and reasonings were all over the place and only one question had duplicate reasoning provided. Of all the other questions, no two people interpreted the question the same way. Of course, the professor set the questions up to be misleading on purpose to prove the point. But initially, all of us in the class thought they were well worded and clearly understandable. This survey with its whopping TWO questions was deliberately and poorly written to provide the answers they wanted. Even then they had to cherry-pick the respondents to get that “evidence.”

  39. Josh Grella says:

    Billy Liar says:
    March 4, 2011 at 7:37 am

    Well played, sir. Well played!

  40. SteveE says:

    Billy Liar says:
    March 4, 2011 at 7:37 am
    SteveE says:
    March 4, 2011 at 7:22 am

    It would help your case if you could spell ‘consensus’. To me your mis-spelling looks like ‘con – census’ – an entirely appropriate term!

    ——————

    I studied science at university because my English was terrible. It shouldn’t take anything away from my point though, just allow you to make some glib remark.

  41. Smokey says:

    Noelle,

    Obviously you haven’t read The Crutape Letters or The Hockey Stick Illusion [both available on the sidebar]. Had you read them, or had you even read the Climategate emails, you would understand how thoroughly corrupt the climate pal review system is. It is a racket.

    Therefore, cherry-picking from the pal reviewed clique will give preposterous results like 97%. Only credulous people will accept that as an honest poll, rather than a push-poll designed to get predetermined answers.

    My only question would be: what about the two climate scientists who said there has been no warming over the past 150 years? Explain that.

  42. Gary Krause says:

    I am glad you posted this example of statistical hog-washing. We all know well how to manipulate data via statistics for the sole purpose of supporting a point.

    It is an indication of the character of characters at TWC. They even had a new recruit confess on live broadcast his new enlightenment that AGW is real and he had come to crossed over from a skeptical denier to the inner sanctum of “grab the money.” It was (is) pathetic.

  43. Gary Krause says:

    Corrected sentence: …”he had crossed over…” Too much coffee. :)

  44. Smokey says:

    I see that SteveE has chosen to avoid my question asking for evidence that carbon dioxide causes global harm. No one else has ever provided any evidence of planetary harm from CO2, and I’ve asked that question a lot.

  45. SteveE says:

    Smokey says:
    March 4, 2011 at 8:20 am
    Noelle,

    Obviously you haven’t read The Crutape Letters or The Hockey Stick Illusion [both available on the sidebar]. Had you read them, or had you even read the Climategate emails, you would understand how thoroughly corrupt the climate pal review system is. It is a racket.

    Therefore, cherry-picking from the pal reviewed clique will give preposterous results like 97%. Only credulous people will accept that as an honest poll, rather than a push-poll designed to get preconceived answers.

    My only question would be: what about the two climate scientists who said there has been no warming over the past 150 years? Explain that.

    ——————–

    You’re just showing once again that you still haven’t read the report.

    76 of 79 responded risen to question one.

    75 of 77 responded yes to question two.

    The reason? Maybe they wanted to grab some lunch and couldn’t be bothered to read the question, pressed the wrong button or felt that it wasn’t a fair question.

    Still two people out of 77 is hardly anything to worry about is it? You wouldn’t not elect a president just because 2.6% of the population didn’t want him in office.

  46. Noelle says:

    Smokey wrote: “It is a racket.”

    I’m trying to understand your core interpreation of this. Correct me if I am wrong.

    So, in your opinion, the entire climate science research community (with the possible exception of the 3 percent who did not answer yes on the poll) are dishonest? Yes or No?

    “My only question would be: what about the two climate scientists who said there has been no warming over the past 150 years? Explain that.”

    I explain that by there is always disagreement among scientists. You explain it (if you answer “yes” to my above question) by stating that the remaining 97 percent are dishonest. Is that an accurate interpretation of your opinion?

  47. SteveE says:

    Smokey says:
    March 4, 2011 at 8:35 am
    I see that SteveE has chosen to avoid my question asking for evidence that carbon dioxide causes global harm. No one else has ever provided any evidence of planetary harm from CO2, and I’ve asked that question a lot.

    ———–

    I have several times in the past, you choose to ignore it, just like reading that report.

  48. R.S.Brown says:

    Carl Parker has a taped loop presentation on Weather
    Channel that’s been run part of February into March.

    He’s responding to a “letter” from a viewer who has
    doubts about the recent heavy snows being a result of
    “Global Warming”.

    (This letter was recieved and responded to before
    the recent NOAA study indicating heavy NH snows up to and
    including those in 2009 weren’t influenced by AGW,
    and were the results of natural weather variations.)

    The letter writer also asked Mr. Parker to keep his “politics”
    on climate change out of his weather presentations.

    Mr. Paker responded with the Illinois “consensus” study stats…
    but I have serious doubts he knew or knows how limited the
    survey was in terms of the sample subset actually deemed
    useful by the study’s authors.

    He also seems clueless to the fact that the Illinois study
    authors have admitted that the study boiled
    down to the 75/77 respondents.

    Happily, now that the Weather Channel is chock full of
    “Prime” infotainment, I;m getting more use out of the
    24 hour a day regional radar channel and the regional
    weather channels our cable service provides.

    I have NOAA weather:
    http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
    on my desktop and as a “favorite” when I need real
    weather reporting.

  49. Gary Krause says:

    It am musing that in the name of science one could possibly defend the polling in question. A graduate student working on a GRP would not be allowed such garbage. Yet those who have successfully developed a passing GRP seem bent on making it an alter piece. Another icon of truth. Well, maybe in today’s climate (pun) of grant monger funding, students are led to the trough.

  50. Gary Krause says:

    oops— did it again s/b “I am musing…” humbug

  51. tom s says:

    I used to watch the weather channel back in the 1980s as I was studying to become a meteorologist….have absolutely no desire now. I could care a less what they have to say. I have plenty of actual meteorological data at my fingertips and can’t stand to watch plastic people on tv. Why would I? Propogandized bs!

  52. Thanks for bringing this up again. This consensus nonsense drives me nuts. Then you have clowns like Ralph Nader spewing crap like this:

    http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/ralph-nader-blames-rush-limbaugh-and-sean-hannity-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-skepticism/

  53. stephan says:

    One of the most backward trashy newspapers in the world is the Sydney Morning Herald… Their science editors must have bird brains look at this
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/grim-climate-forecasts-now-a-reality-20110304-1bhyx.html
    The newspaper must have heavy investments in carbon credits or similar…

  54. Smokey says:

    SteveE,

    You indicate that you’ve posted verifiable evidence showing that CO2 is causing measurable, quantifiable damage to the planet. I must have missed that, please post it again. Make sure that it shows quantifiable global damage directly attributable to CO2 and not to other causes, and that it is based on empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method. Thanx in advance.

    Noelle,

    The climate pal review system is a racket. Maybe you don’t understand because you haven’t read the Climategate emails stating that skeptical scientists must be kept from publishing, even if the pal reviewers have to re-define what peer review means. Or that they will blacklist journals that don’t support only the alarmist Party line. The Climategate emails are filled with similar examples of corruption. So yes, it is a racket.

    Regarding the 97%, you should re-read the article. Here’s the crux of it:

    The 97% number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

    The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers…

    Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but probably none of those 77 had a degree in “Climatology.” What are Gavin Schmidt’s or Michael Mann’s or James Hansen’s or Kevin Trenberth’s or Caspar Amman’s or Malcolm Hughes’ degrees in?

    This was simply a subset of people who have published in the pal review journals, and only a fool or someone ignorant of the rampant corruption in climate peer review would believe that it is an unbiased sample. What they did was to deliberately select the most extremely biased subset, and exclude the ten thousand other earth scientists who might not answer their push-poll the way they wanted.

    If you can’t see that, there’s not much I can do to help you.

  55. Tom_R says:

    Noelle says:
    March 4, 2011 at 8:49 am

    So, in your opinion, the entire climate science research community (with the possible exception of the 3 percent who did not answer yes on the poll) are dishonest? Yes or No? <<

    Are the 97% of Catholic Priests who answer 'yes' to the poll question 'Does God exist?' dishonest?

  56. ThomasJ says:

    Re surveys: How many judges would answer with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question:
    “Have you stopped accepting bribes?”
    Go figure…! ;)

    Brgds from Sweden
    //TJ

  57. Jon in TX says:

    The weather channel jumped the shark years ago. Frankly, it’s near impossible to turn it on and even get the weather forecast anymore, they run so many special interest stories.

  58. James Chamberlain says:

    Even if what Parker says was true, and it is not, science is not done by consensus. Science is based on truths and facts. Those truths and facts are what they are regardless of who believes in them or not.

  59. Noelle says:

    Smokey,

    You believe the vast majority of climate scientists are liars. That’s all I need to know.

  60. JP says:

    “They actually suggest this is proof that there is a concencus among those “who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”, but the problem lies with communicating this to the general public who mistakenly beleive there is still a debate of this subject.”

    I beg to differ from that point of view. For over a decade the public was exposed to massive amounts of “studies” from a multitude of disciplines that humans in fact were causing the globe to alarmingl warm. From the iconic Dr Mann Hockey Stick, to Dr Hansen’s temperature projections, to 2 IPCC ARs, there was nothing nuanced or sublte about the Alarmist’s science. And Lord have mercy on any person (scientist or non-scientist) who differed.

    What really got the “nuanced” scientists really going was Katrina. From the Autumn of 2005 onward, almost all climate scientists became instant weather forecasters. About every kind of unusual or “extreme” weather event was attributed to AGW. And as early as 2001, forecasters and climate scientists at the UK Met Office were warning that cold and snowy winters were quickly becoming a thing of the past. Even the once reputable Dr Jeff Masters got onboard. By 2007 the science was anything but nuanced. Hysteria is a better word to use.

  61. MattN says:

    “It is I think by any reasonable standard fair to say that if 90% of more than 3100 earth scientists agree on something, that fits the definition of consensus.”

    An accurate statement…if it were true. But it’s not…

  62. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” The 97% number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout. “””””

    Aha I see a pattern: “Two researchers” did a study of 77 different scientists views; like good scientists they recused themselves; leaving 75 reputable scientists who were unanimous in their views.

  63. TimM says:

    How many times do we have to go over this? One more (at least) it would appear so without further adieu …

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Consensus = Politics
    Belief = Religion
    Prove it, publish all data, methods, code and let everyone take a shot at it then answer all questions = SCIENCE

    Science is truly the most demanding job on the planet. If some don’t like adhering to the scientific method they should find a less demanding and challenging career!

    I don’t care if 99.9999999% of the scientists agree on something. If 1 question is raised that their theory can’t account for then you have 2 choices, modify or abandon your theory.

  64. Marc77 says:

    Again, the most popular error with stats: statistically significant does not mean the effect is huge. With the right instruments and data, a very small effect can be proven to be statistically significant.

  65. Scott Covert says:

    Q. Why did they poll so many people?
    A. To make the poll look scientific (large sample size).

    Q. What would be the result they were looking for?
    A. An overwhelmingly strong statistic that would “prove” their point (without getting too close to 100% which might bring their methods into doubt).

    Does cropping the poll to a sub group of the most highly invested people in the subject “prove” anything? I bet you could poll the 5 most published phrenologists about the merits of phrenology and produce a strong concensus about the validity of the “science”. Pick any highly specialized group and you are highly likely to get a strong (fanatical) result.

  66. Smokey says:

    Noelle says:

    “Smokey,

    You believe the vast majority of climate scientists are liars. That’s all I need to know.”

    Quote exactly where I said that, and I will retract with a sincere apology what I am going to say next:

    Noelle is the liar.

  67. Smokey says:

    I’ll apologize anyway. Noelle may be crazy, not mendacious. Her mendacity was just an assumption on my part.

  68. Ockham says:

    Hasn’t this been debunked before? The study that I tend to encounter with regards to AGW consensus is this one
    Can somebody address this?

  69. Snowlover123 says:

    I replied to Carl Parker…. am eager to see if he actually responds or not.

  70. Ockham says:

    Link- Expert Credibility in Climate Change, William R. L. Anderegga et al 2009
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

  71. Smokey says:

    “It is I think by any reasonable standard fair to say that if 90% of more than 3100 earth scientists agree on something, that fits the definition of consensus.”

    MattN says:

    “An accurate statement…if it were true. But it’s not…”

    Then here is a true statement: over 31,000 degreed professionals in the hard sciences [no humanitites, English Lit majors or Sociologists; not even any M.D.'s if they don't have a science degree], including over 9,000 PhD’s, have co-signed the following statement:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. [my emphasis]

    Consensus doesn’t count in science. But the alarmist clique started the consensus war, and now they’re sniveling like spoiled brats because as it turns out the consensus is with the skeptical scientists. The alarmist crowd has tried to get more signatures on several competing petitions, but the total of all of them is much less than the OISM Petition above.

    The fact is that most scientists know what’s going on: seven billion dollars a year are handed out in government climate-related grants, and scientists who are skeptics of AGW get almost none of that taxpayer loot. Most don’t speak up, out of concern that they won’t get the next pay raise, or the promotion they want – or they might even face getting laid off. Who is going to risk that by voicing their opinion?

    That in a nutshell is the problem in the climate alarmist industry. Free speech is threatened, the scientific method with its required transparency is nowhere to be found, and money has corrupted the science.

    The biggest fools of all are those who have nothing to benefit them by jumping on the CAGW bandwagon here and repeating the mindless drivel they hear on television and read in Newsweek, TIME, big city newspapers, etc. They have invested their egos in the CAGW fraud, and now they have no choice but to stick with their endless argumentum ad ignorantium. CAGW has been debunked by the planet itself, and still the cognitive dissonace-impaired come here to try and convince people that black is white, down is up, evil is good, and runaway global warming is right around the corner. Yeah. Blizzards and record cold are also proof of AGW. As if.

    The planet’s temperature anomaly is now back to exactly what it was in 1981 – 30 years ago. The predicted runaway global warming is going the wrong way. Yet they still demonize harmless, beneficial CO2, and try to convince rational people that climate catastrophe is at hand and the solution is to destroy modern industrial society.

    Some day, there will be a reckoning.

  72. Mooloo says:

    Going back the to catholic analogue, if you ask the question do you think that man evolved from apes the priests would say no

    You’ve not spoken to many Catholic priests, I take it. The Catholic church’s official position is that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose driven natural process, actively guided by God.

    There is a consensus on evolution among educated people. The US exception should not be taken as the rule elsewhere. I teach at a Catholic school, where evolution is accepted (albeit with teleological assumptions by many).

    There is no equivalent consensus for climate science.

  73. E.M.Smith says:

    It’s very difficult for me to understand the disdain for science that exists today.

    It is not disdain for science, it is disdain for “scientists” who play video games and believe them real, and think if they all vote for rain it will rain…

    There is ZERO place for “concensus” in determining TRUTH. Nada. Zip.

    Did the concensus that the earth was a few thousand years old and that the earth was the center of the solar system determing TRUTH?

    Did the consensus that Thalidomide was just fine determine TRUTH?

    How about the concensus that continental drift and plate techtonics was bunk? How did that one work out?

    Though we see unequivocal results in surveys, and though this consensus is backed by nearly every major scientific organization, some still see scientists as nefarious and engaged in conspiracy.

    So you natter to each other and whisper sweet nothings in each others ears, then servey each other and think that makes TRUTH? You think that gathering in meeting halls and singing Kum Bah Yah makes for TRUTH? You think controlling who gets published and heard is NOT a conspiracy?

    And they wonder why we don’t trust them….

    Here’s a clue:

    Turn off the models.
    Stop listening to the echo chamber.
    Pay no attention to who has the most pats of the back from whom.

    Now, take a thermometer that HAS NOT CHANGED in a few hundred years and look at it. You will find that for long lived thermometers there is no warming.

    Think about it….

    Then compare the ones that DO show warming (typically at major airports with a history of tarmac growth) to those in areas around them that have not changed. Notice that the neighbors are not warming…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/comparison-temperatures/

    Think about it…

    That’s all I ask. Gather data, and THINK about it.

    And it doesn’t matter at all what your Nintendo toys say, nor what your friendsters say, nor how many Pal Reviews you have, nor what is PC today, nor what percentage of folks subscribe to the religion of the day. All that maters is data, and what it says when unadorned by all the clap trap you think is science, but isn’t.

  74. John Linder says:

    “Consensus” is a term used by politicians. Scientists seek truth.

  75. Ian H says:

    When a survey asks dishonest questions so that an honest answer will be misinterpreted and no response is provided in the survey that adequately represents my beliefs, then I generally refuse to answer at all.

    Sometimes, as seems to be the case here, dishonest surveys are deliberately written to generate a particular result. But sometimes it seems more like the person writing the survey just has no idea what the real issues are.

    Some warmists, usually the ardent environmentalist types with very little scientific background themselves, have a very superificial and wrong idea of what skeptics actually think. They believe that skeptics deny that the greenhouse effect exists; deny that CO2 levels have increased; or deny that the world warmed over the second half of the 20th century. And of course there are a few skeptics who fit their preconceptions.

    The trouble is that many do not care to try to understand what skeptics truly think. The CO2 warming thing is such a useful justification for them. They WANT to believe it. It gives them the crisis they need to justify the war they want to wage against the supposed sins of modern civilisation.

  76. mathman says:

    Around the bend, once again.
    Concensus? I guess the Earth does not move. That was universally held oh, about 400 years ago. It was believed, it was solemn doctrine, one could be burned at the stake for denying that the Earth stands still. It was proved in Scripture. Just ask Giordano Bruno.
    A stationary Earth is not consistent with our understanding of the Universe. Galileo’s problem is that the aberration of light had not yet been discovered, nor can it be detected by unaided human vision. But the theory has to be used if the telescope is to be pointed accurately.
    There is only one problem with AGW. The evidence is not there. There is extensive evidence that the weather changes, from day to day, and year to year. There is evidence that humans affect local weather (the heat island effect).
    There is no evidence that we can measure Global temperature.
    I know that the statement above is harsh. It is nevertheless true. The error bars are too large, the satellites are too new, the data is too scant.
    To concede is to give up before the game is finished. If this is scientific consensus, I want no part of it.
    I am still waiting for the long-term thermometer investigations: how well does the device remain calibrated over 100 years? Or even over 20 years?
    I am also waiting for the proxy to be revealed which accurately reflects the recorded temperatures over the past 150 years!
    tick
    tick
    tick

  77. David W says:

    Noelle’s question of whether people believe that the 97 climate scientist are liars employs exactly the same type of deceptive tactic that the original survey employed.

    It reminds me very much of an old Yes Minister episode.

    Anyone with any understanding of the climate change debate would instantly recognise the deceptiveness of this survey. But go right ahead and keep on pulling this sort of crap. Every time you do it you shoot another hole into the AGW movements credibility which is getting lower on a daily basis.

    Your problem is Noelle, that a large portion of the public have now come to the conclusion that anything coming out of the pro-AGW camp needs to be treated with a healthy degree of suspicion. People’s “spin” detectors these days are very finely tuned and if you try and “spin” them too much like the AGW movement has done they won’t believe a word you say.

    So Noelle, the answer is “no”. I wouldn’t call all of the 97 scientists a liar. The questions in the survey were worded in such a way that would allow the 97 to provide a “yes” answer irrespective of whether they believed human CO2 emissions had caused most of the global warming during the past 30 years.

    Let me ask you a question Noelle. Do you think this survey demonstrates that nearly all scientists (lets say 90%) believe that human induced CO2 emission are responsible for much of the warming that has occurred in the satellite era (since 1979) and does it show their is a scientific consensus on this point?

    If you answer “yes” to this question Noelle then I am calling you a liar.

  78. Taphonomic says:

    Wow.

    Let’s clarify a few things and ask a few questions about this

    1) It’s not the University of Illinois; it’s the University of Illinois, Chicago.

    2) This is originally based on a Master’s thesis by Margaret R. K. Zimmerman with Doran as her adviser:
    https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/uic/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&v1=1&BBRecID=2145399

    3) The 3,146 respondents were cherry picked to get to either 79 or 77 of “those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” (79 for question 1; 77 for question 2).
    Why aren’t the numbers the same for both questions?

    4) The Eos article states: “Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.”

    5) I say cherry picked because 5% of 3,146 is approximately 157; 8.5% of 3,146 is approximately 267. How did Doran and Zimmerman get from either of these numbers to 79 or 77?

    6) The Eos article also notes: “The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).” And “Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2.”
    Why aren’t these numbers more significant than the 79 or 77? Can 79 or 77 people really be a consensus?

    7) Doran was also the lead author on a paper in Nature (Doran et al. 2002) that noted Antarctic cooling. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html

    8) When the results from Doran et al. 2002 were cited as evidence against global warming, Doran published an article in the New York Times in 2006 (not peer reviewed).
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=1

    9) In this 2006 New York Times article Doran states:
    “Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet.”
    So 58 % cooled and the rest (42%) warmed? No area stayed the same? The article in Nature indicated 58% cooled. It is not clear what evidence Doran had to state that the “rest of the continent was warming”.
    But that’s okay because some unspecified models have “suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole”.

    10) Since then, Pope et al. 2007 have questioned the chemistry underlying ozone depletion: Francis D. Pope, Jaron C. Hansen, Kyle D. Bayes, Randall R. Friedl, and Stanley P. Sander, Ultraviolet Absorption Spectrum of Chlorine Peroxide, ClOOCl. J. Phys. Chem. A, 2007, 111 (20), pp 4322–4332
    So it is unclear if these unspecified models are even valid.

  79. Rob R says:

    Steve E

    The Pope has declared that biological evolution is a real process. Most of the catholic bishops will fall into line with this. So your analogy is poor.

  80. Smoking Frog says:

    SteveE Going back the to catholic analogue, if you ask the question do you think that man evolved from apes the priests would say no.

    What makes you think so? The Catholic position on evolution is generally positive, except for the insistence that “ensoulment” was not the result of evolution, and that all humans have a common origin.

  81. Smokey says:

    Where is SteveE? Where is Noelle? I’d sure like to read their responses to Taphonomic and others here.

    This fake ‘poll’ is a prime example of how to do a poll as badly as possible. They are lying with statistics. It is a push-poll that was intended to show something that doesn’t exist. Any poll that purports to show that 97% of respondents agree on something is a bogus poll. These so-called researchers are simply propagandists in disguise.

  82. eadler says:

    [snip] It certainly makes sense to put special weight on the opinions of climate scientists who study a climate. The same poll shows that 64% of meteorologists agree with the 97% of climate scientists.

    The poll run by Doran et. al. is not the only evidence that exists that climate scientists support AGW.

    There is another poll, run by Roger Pielke and James Annan, who found that a majority of climate scientists believe that the IPCC AR4 report either got things about right, or understated the problem of global warming.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1-by-brown-et-al-2008/

    Their question about the nature of global warming was more specific. Here is what they found.

    Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.

    That number again 97%. Is that an unlikely coincidence resulting from random numbers, or an indication of a real consensus.

    In addition there is a poll by Harris Interactive which was originally run in 1991 by Gallup, which shows that acceptance of human caused global warming has increased substantially among the group of scientists surveyed.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern

    Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that “currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming.” The findings mark a significant increase in concern over climate change since 1991, when a Gallup survey of the same universe of scientists showed only 60 percent agreed that temperatures were up and 41 percent believed that evidence pointed to human activity as the cause.

    The point about the absence of solar scientists made by D’Aleo is nonsense. Solar scientists know that the sun’s irradience reached a peak around 1950, and has been on a decline since. The recent era of global warming started in the mid to late 1970’s. There is no reason to expect that the sun is responsible for the most recent global warming trend. Solar scientist’s expertise under these circumstances would not be likely to add any intelligence to the question of a scientific consensus, and don’t represent a great loss.

  83. Gneiss says:

    The polls by Doran et al. (2009) and by Brown, Pielke & Annan (2008) broadly agree, so you can’t blame the results on one poll, particular question wording or the authors’ biases. Supporting evidence comes from the fact that all the main U.S. scientists’ organizations, including the huge AAAS (100,000+ members) and AGU (50,000+), have made clear statements on the reality of ACC. Still more evidence comes from other scientists’ organizations worldwide. Or at a more elite level, from the national science academies. Or at a more focused level, from broad interdisciplinary reviews like the IPCC.

    All these separate strands of evidence confirm that there is a very broad consensus among scientists.. D’Aleo and WUWT regulars can imagine that tens of thousands of scientists know less about climate than they do, or must all be dishonest. If those claims seem unbelievable I guess you need to attack the reality of consensus.

    Scientists have expressed their views clearly across many different venues. Poll results are just one sign, but they agree with all the others.

  84. Alvin says:

    From Carl Parker’s Facebook wall:

    Couple of things about this quote from Joe D”Aleo: first of all, 3146 scientists responded to the survey, not over 10,000. It just so happens that 77 of those 3146 were the climatologists. But 90% of the 3146 say that the planet it warming,… and 82% say that humans are “significantly contributing”. Much larger numbers. Now D”Aleo has a problem with these results because for him it’s a matter of degree. That’s fine, and I’ll respond to that later, but please remember the context of my post, which was that of responding to peope who believe none of it.

  85. Alvin says:

    Don’t recall having a post denied/deleted before. Must have done something bad.

  86. Nuke says:

    Since when do polls determine facts?

  87. SBVOR says:

    This survey is just like all the rest from the CAGW alarmist cabal:

    It dishonestly attempts to conflate agreement on some degree of human contribution to warming with an agreement on the (alleged) need to regulate CO2. The one question you will NEVER see asked in ANY survey from this CAGW cabal is the following:

    Do you favor government regulation of CO2?

    In the end, that is the ONLY survey question that matters. And, the CAGW cabal KNOWS that one will NEVER come down in their favor.

    Click here for more quantitative data on the abject fraud of the alleged consensus.

  88. SBVOR says:

    P.S.) There is a glaring conflict of interest in soliciting the opinions of those with a direct financial incentive to propagate the CAGW fraud. Scientists who do NOT have such a financial incentive are the ONLY ones qualified to render an objective opinion (I am one such scientist).

    Click here to further examine this topic.

  89. SBVOR says:

    I wonder if Mr. Parker is aware that only 24% of his peers share his views on AGW.

    Click here and examine the facts.

    Some “consensus” — NOT!

  90. Alvin says:

    Parker is now resorting to using this site to defend himself

    http://www.logicalscience.com/

  91. R. Craigen says:

    I would say Yes to #1 and default the second. I simply don’t know.

    From my conversations with Chris Essex, award-winning author and mathematician well-known for his work in dynamical systems and numerical analysis (and who spent some of his professional career working on climate models), I believe he would say No to #1, and that the question was nonsense. Nonsense because it does not make sense to speak of “the temperature” of the earth except in terms of averaging and it does not make sense to speak of “average temperature” of a system that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium (I don’t want to misrepresent him — I believe this is a gross oversimplification of his objection, but it’s the part that I understand). Earth’s atmospheric system is about as far as it could be from such a state. Averages, particularly of the type derived by NOAA, CRU and so on, are next to meaningless.

    I think Chris has a point, but I still grant that, in some “vague sense” that is roughly revealed by the numbers, there has been a general qualitative trend which could be described as warming, though quantifying it is probably nonsense. It makes much more sense to speak of local temperature trends. The ice cores, for example, assuming their value as proxies are as good as we currently believe, are reasonably good records of local long-term temperature trends. We infer conclusions about global trends, but such inferences must be taken with a big grain of salt.

Comments are closed.