We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².
So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.
The survey is titled:
Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹
Abstract
Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated–and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated–with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.
From the abstract, it is clear the authors didn’t expect to find this result, as they were likely expecting something close to the fabled 97%. They give this away when they advise in the abstract steps that can be taken to “correct” the low number reported.
The introduction says:
Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).
So clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.
The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:
“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”
Respondent options were:
- Yes: Mostly human
- Yes: Equally human and natural
- Yes: Mostly natural
- Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
- Yes: Don’t know cause
- Don’t know if global warming is happening
- Global warming is not happening
Here’s the kicker:
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):
Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of “climate scientists” versus others tends to be a smaller clique.
Dr.. Judith Curry writes:
Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.
So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”
That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.
References:
[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The clear trend is that those ‘climate scientists’ who publish mainly in ‘climate science’, i.e. they do it for a living and have to get published as part of that are the most enthusuastic about AGW. That is just a self interest filter at work. Says all you need to know really.
[snip – not interested in your characterization of me – Anthony]
==========================================
Just a few days ago, dbstealey and Ferdinand Engelbeen drew my attention to the WUWT sidebar which criticizes SkS for deleting user comments and noted that this means SkS is “dishonest”.
So it’s disappointing that my comment was snipped, but even more disappointing that Anthony claims it was because of a “characterization” after he accused John Cook and other SkS authors of dishonesty.
I still think it’s possible that Anthony has the integrity to not snip this comment, so I’ll repeat my challenge that got snipped earlier: “I’d be very interested to see WUWT read through 10,000 scientific abstracts and rate them. You could show the world how to do a proper survey… right?”
================================
REPLY: Oh please. Bryan for the record, I don’t give a rats ass about what you think about comment policy (see here). You put words in my mouth in the last comment, I snipped it because of that. Get over yourself. Why don’t you get your peers at JPL to do it, if it is so important to you? After all, you’ve got millions of dollars of government money at your disposal there and we have next to nothing.
The whole consensus chasing is a waste of time in my opinion, Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of the AGW issue- Anthony
Interesting as I wouldn’t have made it into that 5%, shock and horror. Neither would our host or a great many sceptics.
E Wiebe says:
November 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm
It seems worth pointing out that you should all actually read the paper. It’s really not as supportive of this site’s alternative hypotheses
======
What alternative hypotheses??
….complete FAIL is not a hypothesis
In case you haven’t noticed….they’ve been flat out lying for almost 2 decades
“Many climate scientists’ careers and lavish funding DEPENDS on continued global warming.”
Just as the opposite is true, very little skeptical work is funded. The question is, how much does this monetary pressure skew the numbers….8 per cent…12 per cent… 20 per cent? Just a few per cent makes deniers in the majority and that is easily a certainty.
And the 5 per cent for the last item is a bogus number.
Only 1% told the truth, that is “Yes, don’t know cause”
Science is not about consensus it is about the testing of a theory….
Theory tested and fails test many times over…
Last week on the BBC’s Question Time our Climate Change Minister, another MP and a union boss all reckoned the Polar Ice Caps are melting….err no.
Refer sea ice data on the site today….overall up on the mean average 1979 – 2008.
They lie and lie and lie…and are they so thick and stupid it beggars belief!
I was a member of the AMS for 20 years, also having the broadcast television seal. I left television in 1993 to trade commodities, using the influence of weather on the price of grains and energies and still do that.
I left the AMS over a decade ago but not over this particular issue even though I consider myself AGW brainwashed in the 1990’s and the AMS played a role.
I would have responded that yes, there has been global warming with insufficient evidence, some of it is probably human. This would have put me in the other 48%.
I just remembered why I quit being a member. The combination of dues and renewal of my broadcast seal was over $200/year and I figured out my television career was over as well as any benefits the membership offered with my new profession. I liked their AMS bulletin/journal with some good articles occasionally but the internet has 1,000 times more stuff now……..just like Anthony provides daily right here. Thanks Anthony!
One thing that is misleading in these type of surverys. When a scientist responds that they think most of the warming is from humans, it’s almost assumed that they belong in the CAGW category when, in reality, there are those that think humans warming the planet is almost entirely a good thing…………..I was one of them in the 1990’s!
I’m waiting for the survey to come out that asks greenhouse growers(these people make their living creating the ideal environment for plants to flourish) questions about increasing CO2 and plants.
Only 5% believe it’s mostly natural ! Staggering ! What evidence do they have that man has had anything to do with it ? What has happened to science ?
. Given the chances of getting 97% again was virtual nil , it could well have been higher or lower and still be a honest exercise.
The biggest give away that Cooks work was rubbish is in the fact the very number they were so desperate to support . Because the ‘need’ to hit that exact same number was a reflection of the way this claim had entered the dogma of ‘the cause ‘, which can never be challenged nor changed for the faithful rather than a refection of reality . For its only the dogma style claims of religions that require such tricks , science could have easily handled lower or higher values.
““Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?””
Uh, where is “Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary cause”?
Why cut back on CO2 emissions if they aren’t causing anything significant?
We drive by a building which houses a company selling solar panels, on the wall is a thermometer display, it is always reads differently to our car, The display as we passed recently (on a dull day) read 9C degrees our car read 8C, On one pass recently (sunny day this autumn) the display read 21C, the car display read 14C.
Is this man made global warming.
Obamacare has just annihilated the working class, expect a shift in opinion shortly. everybody depends on government soon.: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-20/obamacare-shock-one-california-employers-terrifying-true-story
It’s good to see Prince Charles taking action to tackle climate change.
By the way the 74% who did NOT respond obviously don’t take ‘climate change’ seriously. We have a consensus of not giving a damn. Like Prince Charles!
http://youtu.be/zhpNJAKq7dE
The problem with the 97% figure is that the media translates it into- 97% of scientists agree that “humans are causing catastrophic climate change and if we don’t do something now we are doomed”. If you asked scientists if they agree with that quote only about 3% would.
Humans are having dramatic effects on local climates through deforestation, the expansion of urban heat islands and black carbon that is reducing Arctic albedo. Human produced CO2 is having some (unknown) effect so you would have to be a denier and in the 3% to not think humans are having some effect on climate. It may be negligible in the long run but we don’t know at this time. It’s the definitive conclusions of impending crisis made by the media and some climate scientists not supported by the underlying uncertainties that are an attack on science. When people throw the 97% figure out, it’s the distortion of what that represents that is a more important issue in my opinion.
A further thought on the infamous 97% , I am unaware of anybody who as ever done any research that proves what the number of scientists , climate of otherwise , actual is .
Therefore how can you ever know what percentage any number of people in a sub group form of the whole group , when you do not know the whole groups size ?
Sounds like a basic maths fail to me.
Of the 52% True Believers, 100% believe because of the “consensus”.
Dumb Scientist Says … Isn’t a survey of opinions different from a survey of scientific abstracts? ..
———————————-
All surveys are made to ascertain the opinions of the sample. The Cook survey is based on the opinions of the people that were invited to take the survey. If the sample is of an inherent bias then depending on the level of bias, it will show through in the results. Any statistician will tell you that to get a 97 percent result over a true unbiased sample is practically impossible.
If you asked 100 vegitarians if meat is good for you you will get a different answer than asking 100 butchers.
Do you understand this?
Rhoda R,
Not “this site”, just “some of you” meaning the WUWT readership.
Margaret Hardman at 11.38?
Maybe I misunderstood Margaret,
What’s funny is when these folks say something like “political ideology is related to belief about climate change,” they always mean “conservatives tend to be skeptics” and ignore the equally-true converse “liberals tend to be believers.”
Quite frankly, technology will make concerns about excessive carbon moot anyway. Electric cars and nuclear power plants will prevail, with or without encouragement by the environmental pressure groups, although I do see a radical change growing amongst the greenies in favor of
nuclear power (which logically should have been there all the time, but for environmentalism’s
typical lack of logical thinking). Right now nuclear reactors are the cheapest way to make
electricity, and have been for several years. Only the high initial cost and public opposition has
prevented this technology from taking over. But there are now 70 reactors under construction worldwide and plans for another 500, probably more. And electric cars, assuming a good, cheap, fast recharging battery, have it all over gas powered jobs. Even Henry Ford knew that, way back when. Worrying about carbon is shortsighted and pointless.
The whole thing always did remind me of the hair and make-up adverts. You know the ones 80% of 125 women. Totally irrelevent stats.
It’s too bad they didn’t ask how many AMS members agree with the AMS statement on climate change. Sounds like they’d have been lucky to clear 52%.
What percentage of scientists believed in the Phlogiston theory prior its failure? How about the miasma theory or disease transmission? How about the Geocentric model of the Solar System? Or, worse, the bilateral compromise of Geoheliocentrism?
Asking what people believe is like asking how many Americans are Jewish. It neither proves nor disproves Yahweh or the validity of Judaism. But it sure tells you what religion they hold to.
What does ‘mostly’ mean? 51%, 66.67%, 90%, 97.1%,……..?
Anybody who answers ‘mostly’ should be required to supply us with the statistical techniques (and data) they utilized to arrive at their decision.