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).
The word used in the sidebar is “unreliable.”
Jon says:
The results show that 73% (52% + 10% + 11%) feel that humans have at least some role to play in global warming … do they not?
Unfortunately, this study does not address the issue of significance. 0.0001% is “some role” but not one that anyone should fret over.
I think almost every objective scientist would conclude that humans have made “some” contribution to warming if only by the Urban Heat Island effect. But nobody is their right mind would suggest that is something we should be spending a billion dollars a day to mitigate.
Again, there’s a huge difference between asking about “human induced” climate chsiange and “human-produced CO2” climate change. I’d answer “yes” that humans affect climate significantly (rainforest deforestation, land use changes, etc), but I’d answer “no” that human-produced CO2 is causing any measurable effects on climate.
Because only 1% claim they don’t know the cause the entire poll is rubbish. Nobody knows the cause and so nobody knows if it is going to continue to warm, cool, or remain stagnant. To put it another way, if anyone were certain of the cause there would be no reason for the poll, and there really would be a consensus. This is not a poll of what is known, but what is believed. I’m sure popularity is not a characteristic of science.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 20, 2013 at 11:28 am
===========
Just looked at your website, you don’t shy away from controversial subjects do you.
How does your traffic compare to WUWT ??
I think it is “alexa” that knows, who’s reading the material.
Well rather than doing polls of themselves and publishing the results it just might be this group start looking for better front men to sell the product.
Al Gore not so much on the trusted side now.
The current head of sales Pres. Obama just showed a decided lack of how to finish the sale of the current lie he is task to sell, some chance this even larger lie will be even harder to do a roll out of a web site on.
If not they can show their own faces to the public and sell these lies up front on TV live themselves.
Put up or shut up. All hat and no warming.
dp says:
November 20, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Because only 1% claim they don’t know
============
“To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate….”
I would bet my money that 75% know and didn’t want to admit it….
In future years people will look back at Cook et al’s paper and just shake their head at how muddled it was. It should never have got past peer review. History isn’t usually kind to statistical fabrication.
[Snip. 24-hour timeout, per Anthony. Timeout began @1:38 pm, 11/20/2013. — mod.]
Scott Basinger says:
November 20, 2013 at 2:01 pm
From what I’ve seen of his posts, Dumb Scientist’s tag seems to have been come by honestly.
Well, yeah, except for the “scientist” part.
LOL
just 13% of US meteorologists think climate change is caused by humans .
Alvin says:
Yes, mostly natural is so low. Why?
Because they didn’t respond to the questionnaire.
A self selected survey of a group of people that have a strong incentive to keep their head down if their opinion doesn’t conform to the party line is meaningless except as an indicator of dissent by non-participation. More crap that never should have been published.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 20, 2013 at 12:55 pm
“…after he accused John Cook and other SkS authors of dishonesty.”
Not just accused, but tried and convicted. You should look up the original WUWT posts which documented specific transgressions in detail. They are indeed an ethically challenged lot at SkS.
Their posts which I have read are also not generally high quality. You should be very careful about accepting anything from them as factual without double and triple checking the original sources yourself.
@albertalad
Please explain why and how the last countries to industrialize (if at all), that is to say, the poorest, are the ones to “blame”.
I am an AMS Fellow, a CCM and member for 40 years. it is well known I am a skeptic and have given talks at the AMS broadcast conferences and Annual meeting. I was not surveyed. None of my colleagues who I spoke to today are AMS seal holders and known skeptics were surveyed. It is not that they don’t have my address. I get their bills and magazines.
Margaret Hardman says:
November 20, 2013 at 11:48 am
“So what you’re saying is that a certain percentage of an national organisation of meteorologists, not climate scientists, have said something a bit different to a survey of abstracts of published papers on climate change. Really.”
Margaret, so you’d exclude the professional who spends everyday studying and forecasting weather, storm tracks, clouds, precipitation, hurricane strengths, blizzards, tornadoes but include astronomers, psychologists, oceanographers, biologists, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers as long as they support the hype. I know you yourself are simply a follower, which is okay, even laudable that you have the interest, but a wise follower would at least realize they may have something to learn from either side of the debate rather than, with no knowledge of climate, to filter ideas out that criticize the establishment.
Would it surprise you to know that Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, armed with a formidable expertise in statistics has debunked the work of many of the main proponents of CAGW theory. Indeed, a number of prominent papers were withdrawn after publication when his critiques were presented. Interestingly, he is not even a d_eni_er. He just can’t stand badly done statistics, omissions of non-supportive samples and drawing conclusions not supported by the data. He was of course escoriated severely in the Climategate emails by the climate aristocracy for doing it but none could find any effective way to criticize his methods. Climate Audit is a must read for even the faithful. When they publish a paper, they immediately go to CA to see (with some intrepidation, I imagine) to see what their nemesis has to say about it. We know this because if he has criticized their work, there is a worldwide storm in all the blogs and op eds of the compliant MSM.
Would it surprise you to know that all thinking skeptics know and accept that there has been a period of warming, actually since the Little Ice Age and prior to than, there have been many periods of warming – several historically and prehistorically that surpass today’s warm period, and cooling and deep freezing before humankind ever lit a match. Climate is a fascinating subject but the CAGW unprecented types had a free-for-all love-in that didn’t demand rigorous work before skeptics began to investigate their work. If we were all just a bunch of shills for big CO2 emitters as the way we are usually dismissed, why would they be so aggrieved by skeptic’s science and math? No Margaret, serious, apolitical skeptics who are causing these tremors are physicists, mathematicians, engineers, economists (who look at the costs of adaptation to emissions or emission controls) who can understand and audit the work. I, like many (for example Anthony Watts) was a believer in the idea that humans were causing warming and other damage and that something had to be done. When their work didn’t stand up to scrutiny and dire predictions weren’t even seeming to come to pass (agricultural output was increasing, forests were growing faster, the planet was noticeably greening, etc.) and the shenanigans of Climategate, torturing of data, cherry picking data to match expectations, the schmoozing with political and ideological factions, etc., hey, I and many others became skeptics.
The preliminary report by Maibach can be found at the link below.
http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf
He gives a completely different picture of the survey aims from the later Stenhouse et al report:
“The aim of the survey was to answer the following five research questions:
RQ1: Do AMS members feel there is unproductive conflict about climate change within AMS? If so, what do they see as the nature of that conflict? Do they feel able to talk about the issues?
RQ2: If members feel there is unproductive conflict within the membership, to what degree would they support efforts by AMS to better understand the nature of the conflict and take steps to mediate it?
RQ3: What is the range of views among AMS members regarding the existence of climate change, its causes (human v natural), and its implications (i.e., the degree to which it is seen as a serious problem, or not; the degree to which climate change can be limited)? Are members’ views of the conflict (see RQ1 and 2) related to their views about climate change?
RQ4: To what degree do members feel AMS should play an active role in educating the public and other external audiences (e.g., policy makers) about climate change? How large a priority should this be?
RQ5: To what extent are AMS members themselves willing to play a role in educating the public and other external audiences? What, if anything, are they currently doing in this capacity? What, if anything, additional would they like to do?”
This has utterly nothing to do with the supposed four “hypotheses” claimed by Stenhouse et al. If the survey was not designed with those hypotheses clearly laid out in the survey design and ethics board approval, it is not acceptable to apply new hypotheses ex post facto. Can Stenhouse et al show us documents where these hypotheses were laid out as part of the justification of the survey?
Lance Wallace says:
November 20, 2013 at 7:12 pm
Lance, the biggest question I have is: Why on earth is it important to resolve professional conflict on a technical subject. Are they seeking a consensus? Are they considering a cultural revolution type correction of wrong thinking? The wording is very mealy-mouthed and I agree with the premise that they hadn’t expected such results and don’t know how to express themselves on it. How would you define what they mean by “conflict”? Can anyone here tell me what the conflict is? I think they mean that they are disturbed that the profession isn’t toeing the official line.
Possibly the leadership is annoyed at the pushback it’s gotten regarding its position statement.
Answer to Dumb Scientist November 20, 2013 at 11:28 am
I always thought that all scientists had to pass at least basic courses in Theories of Science…. I might be wrong in that assumption. Anyhow you seem not to have read Darell Huff, How to lie with statistics, New York : Norton, 1954
ISBN 0-393-09426-X
Might be an old book, read it myself first time in 70th when studying Mathematical Statistic, but it’s content still one of the best there is to show what magical trics some use to prove non-science theories….
“The whole consensus chasing is a waste of time in my opinion, Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of the AGW issue- Anthony”
To anyone interested in ideal science the above remark rings absolutely true. Unfortunately, real science — how it’s actually done — is heavily dependent on consensus and the godlike pronouncements of acknowledged ‘authorities’. (Most people really don’t want to think: they want their opinions formed by those whom they choose to believe.)
Be that as it may, I still think that you more effectually retain the high moral ground by arguing the science; and you concede ground by getting into the gutter and arguing “consensus” with those you so rightly despise. It doesn’t matter that you are correct on this point — you still pick up some of the smell.
i’ve noticed in the last year or so that the “climate change” department of uk Guardian newspaper site has been taken over by …”the 97% consensus”. it is almost like an sks mouthpiece.not good at all!
“Is global warming happening?”
This is a meaningless question. Warming did occur in parts of the two previous centuries, but there has been none in this century.
If I had to answer the question I would have to say no, because the question is in the present tense. But I am quite sure some amount of warming did occur in the last century.
The question should have been: “Did global warming occur during the 20th century?”. A secondary question could be: “Has global warming occurred during the 21st century?”
It does seem rather basic.
Chris
Could it be that the category “non-publishers” under the “climate science” are those who could not get their work published (as opposed to did not produce any publications) and are consequently elbowed out of their jobs and are now doing something else instead?
I’m one of those who ‘need to be “educated” about climate change’. Exciting!
Bring it on and see who’s thoughest. (aka: put your finger between my teeth and learn how well I still function).