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.
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!
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/
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…
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:
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Smokey,
You believe the vast majority of climate scientists are liars. That’s all I need to know.
“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.
“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…
“”””” 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ll apologize anyway. Noelle may be crazy, not mendacious. Her mendacity was just an assumption on my part.
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?
I replied to Carl Parker…. am eager to see if he actually responds or not.
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
“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:
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.
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.
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.
“Consensus” is a term used by politicians. Scientists seek truth.
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.