More Durban PR ramp-up, this time from GMU, recycling old news and old claims.
Widespread Public Misperception about Scientific Agreement on Global Warming Undermines Climate Policy Support
FAIRFAX, Va.-People who believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about global warming tend to be less certain that global warming is happening and less supportive of climate policy, researchers at George Mason, San Diego State, and Yale Universities report in a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
A recent survey of climate scientists conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois found near unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human-caused global warming is happening.
This new George Mason University study, however, using results from a national survey of the American public, finds that many Americans believe that most climate scientists actually disagree about the subject.
In the national survey conducted in June 2010, two-thirds of respondents said they either believed there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening (45 percent), that most scientists think it is not happening (5 percent), or that they did not know enough to say (16 percent.) These respondents were less likely to support climate change policies and to view climate change as a lower priority.
By contrast, survey respondents who correctly understood that there is widespread agreement about global warming among scientists were themselves more certain that it is happening, and were more supportive of climate policies.
“Misunderstanding the extent of scientific agreement about climate change is important because it undermines people’s certainty that climate change is happening, which in turn reduces their conviction that America should find ways to deal with the problem,” says Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.
Maibach argues that a campaign should be mounted to correct this misperception. “It is no accident that so many Americans misunderstand the widespread scientific agreement about human-caused climate change. A well-financed disinformation campaign deliberately created a myth about there being lack of agreement. The climate science community should take all reasonable measures to put this myth to rest.”
About George Mason University
George Mason University is an innovative, entrepreneurial institution with global distinction in a range of academic fields. Located in Northern Virginia near Washington, D.C., Mason provides students access to diverse cultural experiences and the most sought-after internships and employers in the country. Mason offers strong undergraduate and graduate degree programs in engineering and information technology, organizational psychology, health care and visual and performing arts. With Mason professors conducting groundbreaking research in areas such as climate change, public policy and the biosciences, George Mason University is a leading example of the modern, public university. George Mason University-Where Innovation Is Tradition.
###
Media Contact: Tara Laskowski, tlaskows@gmu.edu 703-993-8815
==============================================================
I’ll let Lawrence Solomon speak to the issue of the “…recent survey of climate scientists conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois “.
Deceitful claim: 97% of climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming
by Lawrence Solomon December 30, 2010 – 2:35 pm
Original Link:
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position. [1]
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The 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 [2]. Are you?
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.
—
[1] http://www.probeinternational.org/ipcc-flyer-low%5B1%5D.pdf
[2] http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those Statistics aren’t right
97% of scientists assume that this is correct and happening.
http://www.sheiktrends.com
Bravo! Absolutely perfect analogy. You clearly took the red pill.
petermue says:
November 21, 2011 at 2:28 ……………………………………………………
2000 ppm *IS* harmless even for humans. CO2 is harmless until it comes near 6%.
6%, that is the constant and necessary CO2 level in our lungs to allow blood gas exchange.
A very minor +/- deviation can cause death.
So it doesn’t play a role for humans if the atmosphere has 400 ppm or 2000 ppm CO2.
————————————————————————————
I’m not sure but, 60,000 ppm seems to be a big number.
The actual study:
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf
While 97% is accurate when restricted to all climatologists actively publishing on climate-change, of which there were 77 respondents, the number only reduces to 90% when all active publishers in any scientific discipline were considered.
It seems to be splitting hairs to object to the 97% number when 90% of all actively publishing scientists still agree that there is significant anthropogenic global warming. Ninety percent is still a valid consensus. Let’s deal bluntly with the facts. Even those that are inconvenient for us. There very likely is significant anthropogenic global warming. But that’s a GOOD thing. AGW is legitimate. It requires wild unsupportable exaggeration to turn it into *Catastophic* warming. The apt term would be BAGW (Beneficial Anthropogenic Global Warming).
R. Gates says: November 21, 2011 at 11:53 am
Smokey says:
“CO2 is harmless and beneficial. No one has been able to falsify that testable hypothesis.”
____
This is an incomplete hypothesis. You’ve not stated the conditions, locations, concentrations, atmospheric pressure, temperatures, etc.
How about this planet, at any of these naturally occurring concentrations over the past 200 X 10^6 years: http://i46.tinypic.com/2582sg6.jpg
Dave Springer,
Please quantify what is “significant” AGW. IMHO, “significant” doesn’t apply to a change of ≈1°C. That is not runaway global warming, or climate disruption, or catastrophic. On balance, the net effect would be entirely beneficial. A 2° rise would be even better.
With one-third of the planet’s population subsisting on $1 a day or less, the opening up of millions of hectares to agriculture in Canada, Mongolia, Siberia, etc., would be a huge benefit to humanity.
This should serve to remind us to take all such statements about this or that, with suspicion. Buyer beware in all things, not just climate science spin. Think education spin, health care spin, jobs spin, and certainly any spin on either side of the blue/red divide (or whatever colors your political groups are in your country).
I read in a book by David Attenborough (on Life) that 3 million years ago when humans’ early ancestors had separated from the primate common ancestor and evolution was continuing apace, the paleoclimatologists he consulted showed him convincing evidence that CO2 levels at the time were 11% of the atmosphere. Why didn’t life just suffocate?
The paleoclimatologists have said the evidence shows CO2 levels have been even higher because the world, not in an Ice Age, has been much warmer leading to higher residual CO2! Life is still here – seems to survive well. I would suggest too little CO2 is the real threat and another glaciation could produce such an effect (it almost did last time according to the experts getting down to 170ppm when plant life needs at least 150ppm to continue to exist).
For me the evidence seems to say that the level of residual CO2 in the atmosphere is directly related to the temperature of the oceans. I do get it that climate is a dreadfully complicated business and CO2 is irrelivant.
Travelling in a Climate Controlled people-carrier car, the eight of us became very sleepy – but I believe it was due to depletion of O2 not the build-up of CO2.
First they pick their cherries, then they *choose* cherries from among those they have picked, then they *select* their favorite cherries from among the ‘chosen ones.’
Rule 13 of the MS program (Mendaciousness for Scientists): “Do as much culling of the data as you can *before* you start to write the report, so nobody can see what you are doing.”
Steph says:
November 21, 2011 at 10:32 am
Yup. Solomon’s critique is pretty worthless. There’s widespread agreement of opinion among scientists that there’s some significant degree of anthropogenic global warming. The disagreement begins in considering what can or should be done about it. The reality of the situation is that no practical means exists to change human activity enough to matter. The reality of the situation is that an ice age was coming without anthropogenic global warming and that will be even more catastrophic than global warming with regard to civilization. It’s unclear if AGW is sufficient to prevent the end of the current interglacial period. The reality of the situation is that in the short term anthropogenic global warming is a great net benefit to agriculture and there are few if any downsides to it. In the long term it may be a great benefit if it can end the ice age and of no consequence if it does not.
Teh FINE PRINT they don’t want you to see but are forced to mention. I bet this was painful to write:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/agriculture.html
//Humor//
Scientific studies prove that 97.2% of the people will believe any hogwash you make up, as long as you tell them scientific studies prove it and give them numbers!!! :-))
Dave Springer:
I am having a tough time distilling the essence of your climate paradigm. Sometimes I agree with everything you write and at other times… nothing makes sense. I am sure it is my failing (I find blogging very discombobulating) so I was wondering, if you have summarized your climate position somewhere that I may read it, in entirety. I ask out of genuine interest and not for additional info, to use against your comments. I think you may have many genuine insights and I would like to understand you better. If not, have a nice day! GK
In the interests of full disclosure I think Anthony and the other regular contributors to this blog should divulge how many millions received in compensation for participating in this “disinformation campaign”. /sarc
In fact research has proven that skeptics are smarter…
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
I guess either Bradley and whoever he’s sure agrees with him just happens to be part of the 3% or the 97% is bogus.
Not as good as Julian’s but I wrote this TWO years ago, and it was published in local papers.
ODE FROM A CARBON WHORE
When I was young and flighty
I rarely wore me nightie
Now I’m old and failing
Bank balances are also ailing! (Ahhh?)
So – me thought and with thinking
Invented a ship that was sinking! (SOS)
HMS CO2 is warming – effing shocking.
Rescuers never saw it and me docking.
They traded in their carbon credits,
Adding trillions to the masses’ debits,
‘Somethings wrong?” screamed a smart sage,
“It’s snowing – cometh another bleedin’ ice age?”
So? “We made a slight error”, I replied
“Be grateful now – you could all have died”,
As temps plummet – just close the door,
Cos – I’m off to warmer climes with Al Gore!”
And so be it. LOL
Figures never lie, but liars figure.
“Maibach argues that a campaign should be mounted to correct this misperception.”
But where can we find someone to mount this well-funded campaign to correct the misperception in the public mind?
Ed Maibach wouldn’t be available? “Ed [Maibach] joined the George Mason University faculty in 2007 to create the Center for Climate Change Communication. Trained in public health and communication, he has extensive experience as an academic researcher and as a communication and social marketing practitioner in government, business, and the non-profit sector. His research focuses on the broad question of how public engagement in climate change can be expanded and enhanced.”
So the public health and communications social marketing practitioner says what they really need is….a public health and communications social marketing practitioner, to explain that the co2 global modelers absolutely all agree that the co2 global models are correct.