Larry Bell writes in his weekly Forbes column about that oft repeated but less than truthy “98% of all scientists” statistic. Supposedly, this was such an easy and quick to do survey, it was a no-brainer according to the two University of Illinois researchers who conducted it:
To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site ( www.questionpro.com ) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation.
I think it is hilarious that so few people who cite this survey as “proof” of consensus actually look into the survey and the puny response numbers involved. So, I decided to graph the data to give some much needed perspective. Apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning. – Anthony
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes
By Larry Bell
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
Read the whole article: That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes
Here’s the survey as it appeared in EOS:
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 90, NO. 3, PAGE 22, 2009 doi:10.1029/2009EO030002
BRIEF REPORT
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Peter T. Doran, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago
Fifty-two percent of Americans think most climate scientists agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 47% think climate scientists agree (i.e., that there is a scientific consensus) that human activities are a major cause of that warming, according to recent polling (see http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm). However, attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For instance, Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities. Yet Oreskes’s approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion [Pielke, 2005]. A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]. The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.
…and the paper with the data: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
UPDATE: The original Larry Bell article referenced 98%, but the actual calculated number is 97.4%. On the web, 97 and 98% values are both referred to individually in articles, as well as a range of 97-98% I’ve amended the title to use the range – Anthony
Lies, damn lies, and statistics…
Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg.
I can’t facepalm as much as I would like to.
I hope somebody administers a more probing survey of scientists, soon. This time, include some physicists and chemical engineers, who have the backgrounds in thermodynamics, radiative heat transfer, mathematically modeling (and testing!) of real systems. This time, ask if the scientists believe the increase in CO2 over the past 100 years has had a significant, measurable effect on temperature, precipitation, extreme events, etc. Ask about confidence and error in our temperature records and adjustments. Ask about biases in the academic community. Ask if the participant has received funding for climate work, and by whom.
Addendum, that first question is… what kind of nonsense is that? The only answer to it can be yes.
“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
That’s like asking “Is a soccer ball round, is the Pope Catholic, is the United States of America in North America?”
It does explain why only roughly one third even sent it back. The other almost 6,000 probably saw the first question and went “What the heck?!”
In other words, people whose paycheck depends on answering “Yes” answered “Yes”.
Very poor sampling method, very poor question construction, cannot evaluate administration of the survey based upon this info but overall a very poor study to be sure. High probability of sample bias and questions structured to obtain a directed response. My opinion is based upon designing and managing survey research for over 20 years either directly or as a function of departments I managed. Quoting this study is, indeed, meaningless.
Selection of those “in the business” of global warming is what led to the result. It is not surprising that those getting their support from biased sponsors would answer in accord with self-interest.
Whenever I see a % being used in a discussion my BS alarm goes off. Much like the long lost R Gates who was so fond of quoting “a 40% increase in CO2” and the much ado about nothing 15% tax rate of Mitt Romney. (BTW, Romney paid over $3 million in taxes while almost half the people in the U.S. paid nothing yet those people used most of the government services. Who isn’t paying their fair share?)
The old saying “figures lie and liars figure” is correct, 97% of the time.
Umm, I’m not trained in statistics, but 75 of 77 is not 98%. It’s 97% (97.40%). If my math is wrong, I’m sure someone will correct me.
Being statistically inclined, I would have interpreted “significant” as “statistically significant”. Although I’m not aware of any study that actually does this, I would be surprised if human CO2 emissions haven’t had some statistically significant contribution to warming since 1800, however small, so I would have to answer yes.
But this wouldn’t mean I thought it was an important contributing factor, or that warming was a great concern or threat. And, as Larry Bell points out, “human activity” is not necessarily CO2 — it could be deforestation, urbanization, or non-CO2 smokestack and auto emissions.
So I’d say the second question does not make the desired point.
“42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.”
–The Hon. W. Richard Walton, Sr.
And while I’m not trained in statistics, I think it is a meaningful that 75 of 3,146 respondents is only 2.38%. Yes, I read that the survey administrators apparently filtered respondents to those supposedly qualified to answer the question.
Lies, damn lies and the EPA…
Science authoritarians make a mockery of truth, science and morality. Because of Government-funding a consensus of academics who are lost to reason have been created. They do not want to hear about anything that is contrary to a host of beliefs that they are no longer able to defend. It is now impossible for any of them to face the fact that nothing they have done has made a worthwhile contribution to society.
And, that is what the EPA is doing in putting its support behind global warming alarmism–empowering overreaching Leftists to take full advantage of credulous and thoughtless dimwits. The EPA is hiding the truth, hiding the decline, hiding the immorality and the harm to the public and to the culture and to all the kids in the dropout factories whose futures are being wiped out.
Nice post. We have needed a concise report on this survey.
Recently Tim Blair (July 16, 2012) linked to a statement by Matt Neal wherein the survey (97% in Neal’s article) was used under the heading “The climate change debate is over” in the Warrnambool Standard [on AU’s south coast 230 km west of Melbourne]. One of the statements is:
“As someone working in the media, I would love to see my fellow journalists and reporters put a ban on covering the views of climate change deniers.” [by Matt Neal]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An analogy to the original survey might be to ask the College of Cardinals if they thought the Pope was Catholic. Other questions of a similarly silly nature are often repeated.
Scientists use real math, not statistics. Only the pseudoprofessionals of Illinois can use statistics think it makes something real.
Steve Divine says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:13 am
“Umm, I’m not trained in statistics, but 75 of 77 is not 98%. It’s 97% (97.40%). If my math is wrong, I’m sure someone will correct me.”
They homogenised it…
It’s still a consensus of 98% of the elite 2% of the 33% that responded out of a quantity equal to 50% of the earth scientists in Canada in 2009. You must be a Big Oil shill to disagree with such a broad consensus of scientific individuals employed mainly by Big Oil and Government.
I call unfair! Just like with Mann’s work, we’re just supposed to accept the conclusions without asking for the data.
The debate is over. Four out of 5
dentistsclimatologists surveyed would recommendsugarless gum to their patients who chew gumnot showing their work to people who would ask too many questions.They would have needed 366 responses to be able to make that claim with a 95% level of confidence. Their math is bogus.
Nothing to see here, really. CO_2 emissions continue to rise so that is all we need to know about how the ordinary consumer views this CAGW meme. If they think about it, they still don’t care. And that’s fine by me!
There is an old concept of “preaching to the choir”, and then there is the flip side of that disk: “polling the choir.”
Imagine asking everybody in a large restaurant at a Sunday luncheon if they attend church. That includes the church choir that meets there after services each week.
The conclusion might read “98+% of all vocalists polled attend church regularly.”
I am sure the ‘climate scientists’ who responded also contacted their fellow scientists and urged them to complete the poll as well, so their opinions would be well-represented. After all, that is something activists do!
Another point that I think is worth mentioning. Most of the scientists who say there is global warming are basing this on the data from GISS and CRU (and I think NOAA?).
Aren’t these the organizations that comprise “the team” members who might have tampered with the temperature data?
If 18%( 3146*.18=566) of the total that responded did not agree, then they outnumber the cherry picked 75 by almost 8 to 1.
I’ll bet at least 98% of the Federal funding for GW research went to the 75.