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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

91 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Misterar
March 4, 2011 3:49 am

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

John Marshall
March 4, 2011 4:12 am

Statistics can be made to claim anything you want!

Mike Bryant
March 4, 2011 4:20 am

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…

March 4, 2011 4:22 am

Excellent break down of the “survey”

John Johnston
March 4, 2011 4:36 am

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

Micky H Corbett
March 4, 2011 4:36 am

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.


Paul R
March 4, 2011 4:40 am

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.

marcoinpanama
March 4, 2011 4:43 am

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.

Wade
March 4, 2011 4:49 am

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.

hunter
March 4, 2011 4:57 am

‘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.

Tom in Florida
March 4, 2011 5:07 am

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.

Frank K.
March 4, 2011 5:14 am

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…

Noelle
March 4, 2011 5:28 am

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.”

SteveE
March 4, 2011 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”, 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

Richard
March 4, 2011 5:42 am

“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.

Les Johnson
March 4, 2011 5:44 am

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.]

March 4, 2011 5:52 am

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/ )

beng
March 4, 2011 5:52 am

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

March 4, 2011 6:00 am

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.

SteveE
March 4, 2011 6:10 am

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.

G. Karst
March 4, 2011 6:11 am

Science is Dead! Long live propaganda!

Stephen Richards
March 4, 2011 6:20 am

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.

Stephen Richards
March 4, 2011 6:24 am

Wade says:
March 4, 2011 at 4:49 am
Wade I make that 100% (20-10)/10*100

huh
March 4, 2011 6:24 am

Global warming is dead! Long live carbon credits!

Doug
March 4, 2011 6:27 am

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

1 2 3 4