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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.”
Billy Liar says:
March 4, 2011 at 7:37 am
Well played, sir. Well played!
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.
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.
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.
Corrected sentence: …”he had crossed over…” Too much coffee. 🙂
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
oops— did it again s/b “I am musing…” humbug