There is a bit of a row that has developed over the recent American Meteorological Society survey of its membership on cause of climate change that gave a surprising result of only 52% of survey respondents answering Yes: Mostly human. The Heartland Institute sent out an email advising its friends, members, and associates of the survey results, as show below, and the AMS is quite unhappy about that email.
On November 28th, AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter posted a rebuttal at the AMS web site titled Going to the source for accurate information. He writes:
A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS.
In addition to that statement, the authors of the paper reporting the results of the survey of AMS members have made a statement about Heartland’s email, which is noted in a post at the Climate Science Watch website titled Taylor distorts poll of meteorologists on climate change to reach opposite conclusion of study authors.
Heartland responded to the AMS with a blog post on their website “Somewhat Reasonable” with: AMS Survey Shows No Consensus on Global Warming. They cover some of the objections raised. Heartland director Joe Bast writes:
We chose to send this notice using an email address that was descriptive of the message – “AMS Survey [mailto:2013AMSsurvey@gmail.com]” – rather than an address with a Heartland domain to maximize the open rate, a common practice in email marketing. There was no attempt to deceive recipients about who sent the message: “This message was sent to [recipient] from Heartland Institute” and our address appear at the bottom of the message.
Dr. Judith Curry wrote about the affair:
At issue is whether the survey should be interpreted as a 52% consensus, or a 90% consensus. As per my post on this paper, 52% consensus(?), I provide a detailed interpretation of the results supporting the 52% consensus conclusion. Based upon their statement, the authors of the paper seem unaware of the nuances of what constitutes the IPCC consensus in terms of attribution. The key issue is how to interpret responses to the survey question related to climate or atmospheric science expertise and secondarily as to whether the members are publishing or not, which is discussed in my post 52% consensus(?).
In summary, Heartland’s interpretation is not a misrepresentation of the actual survey results, although the authors and the AMS are interpreting the results in a different way. A better survey might have avoided some of the ambiguity in the interpretation, but there seems to be no avoiding the fact that the survey showed that 48% of the AMS professional members do not think that most of the warming since 1850 is attributable to humans.
Dr. Curry doesn’t think the results were misrepresented in the Heartland email.
What I think is most upsetting to the AMS executive director and the authors of the survey paper aren’t so much the interpretation, but the way the email was delivered. Note in the image of the email above, its says From: “AMS Survey”. It also contained the logo of the AMS.
That fooled me, for about 5 seconds, into thinking that it was a communications from the AMS. But at the bottom of the email, the sender is quite clear:
My opinion is that Heartland boobed a bit here. They setup a mailing list called “AMS Survey” with the iContact mailing list service, and that would be destined to cause some confusion to recipients.
On the other hand, since the sender is clearly labeled at the bottom, you’d have to be a complete dolt to be permanently fooled into thinking this was an official AMS communications.
That email address combined with the use of the AMS logo, which was fair use for the purpose, pushed some buttons at AMS I think. I think the uproar comes from a couple people being initially misled for about 5 seconds, only to discover it was from Heartland and not the AMS. It is easy to become indignant about being misled, even if for only a few seconds.
The uproar by AMS executive director Setter might also have been accelerated by a thought that Heartland got access to the AMS member list, and that Heartland tried to pull one over on their membership. That isn’t likely, because the email I posted from Heartland via iContact came to a member’s email address that was not on file with the AMS. Even if Heartland had used the AMS mailing list, the AMS doesn’t have much of beef about it since they offer their membership mailing list for sale to 3rd parties.
Source: http://www.ametsoc.org/advertising/professionaldirectory.html
While I think that using the email address “AMS Survey” could have been an honest mistake when Heartland setup the email distribution list with iContact (Hmm, what shall I call it?) based on Bast’s description, it certainly didn’t set well with some people. A cursory review of the Heartland effort by anyone not so close to the issue might have prevented that problem by pointing out the sender address might be misinterpreted, the issue seized upon, and cause some uproar.
OTOH, that may have been exactly what Heartland was counting on, since uproars tend to bring far more eyes to the table than a simple mailer would. See the Streisand Effect. Heartland has been known for pushing the envelope in the past, such as with their disastrous blunder with the Unabomber billboard.
Whether it was an honest mistake, or pushing the envelope, one thing is for certain: far more people know about the 52% survey result now than they would have had the AMS not gone ballistic about it.
While we are on the subject of mailing lists, this survey and subsequent row has created a new discovery about it, and that will be the subject of a future post.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I received the email too. I noticed it was from a gmail address, which I thought was odd, but the Outlook preview panel looked interesting so I fully opened it. It may have taken me a few seconds longer than Anthony, but I soon realized who had sent it and what it was. As this regarded a survey from an organization (AMS) that has exhibited AGW advocacy, my interest level trended below that necessary for further thought.
Anything beyond that, such as being miffed by whatever one might read into it beyond that, really boils down to reading into it more than you can read by reading it. All of it. That would be “spin”.
There seem to be several problems with such surveys/polls/etc. The first two concerns relate to the survey questions as to (a) how equivocal they may be, and (b) how easily they might be misinterpreted by survey participants. Given that this is a scientific society survey, might the results be tilted in favor of those that deign to reply? AGW advocates often appear to be more “vocal”, which is a perception, not a fact. This trend may be further affected if it is not an anonymous membership survey. Given recent NSA revelations, just how comfortable is anyone these days with their metadata regardless of how a survey is conducted?
In the end analysis, it doesn’t really matter. The sun has gone all quite on us at a half-precession old extreme interglacial. CO2 is going up. Temperatures, apparently even with UHI, seem to have flat-lined going on two decades now. The only thing that is of any interest here is whether or not we are going into a Maunder-style minimum or MIS-0*? A subsidiary question, if you are a rational hominid, might be why would you even consider taking such a supposedly potent GHG out of the late Holocene atmosphere?
*MIS-2 was the Last Glacial Maximum. MIS-1 is the Holocene, the present interglacial. MIS-0 would be the next glacial inception etc.
Any time you go the marketing route, dishonesty will rear its ugly head. It’s just the nature of the beast. Regardless of how much of a dolt one might have to be to be fooled by the email, Heartland shouldn’t have done it that way. Like the Unabomber billboard, they seem to be prone to some bad decisions. Don’t be marketers, be fact-presenters; there’s an enormous difference.
Note: The Unabomber billboard might have been factual, but was made into a marketing tool, serving no real purpose, that’s why it backfired.
“What I think is most upsetting to the AMS executive director and the authors…” is that the survey results reveal that most people do not agree with them. A hangable offence in any communist state worth its salt!
Jim Clarke says:
December 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm
+++++++++++
Great and cogent post Jim Clarke. Thank you for taking the time for such a thoughtful response. TB does not understand the words you wrote, and his diatribe proved as much. TB – here’s a hint, when you rebut something someone had written, it’s always a good idea to strip emotions and try to understand what they wrote. If you had done so, we’d not have to read your mostly thoughtless response.
TB said, 12/2 at 2:33 pm
“In a sane world I would suggest that indeed people that publish papers on a subject (peer reviewed – by experts) do very much carry more weight than anyone else.
And I find the questioning of that assumption contrary to common sense and disturbingly bizarre to boot.”
But, in Climate Science, the sane world was never consulted. Many known and well documented physical properties and behaviors of fluids in the atmosphere were never even considered by the carbo-phobic Malthusians chosen to become Climate Science PhDs.
That and the documented pal review and gate keeping within the ranks of the Climate Science community, suggest nothing bizarre about questioning their hypotheses or their conclusions, which seem to be mostly quoting each others’ conjections. Plus, their “the science is settled” proclamations strongly suggest they are trying to hide something.
.
Streisand effect
This was rich, boys, rich I tell you. Kudos H.I., it achieved the intended affect, I think (“wadded knickers” at AMS HQ).
.
TB says:
December 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm
“In a sane world I would suggest that indeed people that publish papers on a subject (peer reviewed – by experts) do very much carry more weight than anyone else.
“And I find the questioning of that assumption contrary to common sense and disturbingly bizarre to boot.”
TB, speaking of bizarre, take 52% of this:
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2012AM/finalprogram/abstract_212012.htm
or this:
http://business.uow.edu.au/sydney-bschool/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf
Was that 52% or 52 Meters?
http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
Pattern-recognition failure might be drug-related. Consult your doctor. Assuming you got to keep your doctor.
Period.
Note Michael E. Mann was (also) presiding………..
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2012AM/finalprogram/session_30943.htm
Stranger things have been known to happen……… 🙂
“If you’re in the con game and you don’t know who the mark is … you’re the mark.”
The cons have been had and they are hopping mad.
No lack of juveniles on either side, though IMO AMS side has cornered the market and is protesting the encroachment onto its territory.
I’m amazed the AMS conducted the survey and then announced the results, in any form. It would be like Stalin asking his people what they thought of their most recent shopping experience at the market.
It’s not astute on the part of politicians to let people express their opinions when a different result is wanted.
Wow. I’m going to start telling people 48% of certified meteorologists do not think the warming we’ve seen since 1850 is attributable to humans.
Is this another big crack in the CAGW PR monolith?
I can’t believe that nutcase Dana.
I am an engineer, and I can tell you that when we design a system we consult both the users of that system and the practitioners – the technicians that monitor and repair these systems day in day out. The hubris of suggesting that the scientists, know more about the intricacies of atmosphere than the practitioners – the meteorologists, is just flabberghasting.
The audacity !
Further he says that the finding that political view influences the statistics is evidence of the evil republicans distorting the debate, it seems to me that equally it’s evidence of the evil democracts supporting a false consensus pseudo-science. That argument obviously swings both ways.
Having said that I’ve had several run ins with the green misathropist activist nut that is Dana and can say without hesitation that he has no scientific understanding of climate, certainly no understanding of feedback, so nothing he says should surprise me.
It is always the message that counts, not the envelope.
It was my understanding that the initial survey results were even less enthusiastic about the “consensus”, and they subsequently revised the survey questions to get better results. A colleague of mine- a now former member of the AMS- was surveyed TWICE for this with slightly revised questions designed to get a better consensus result. In other words, they did the best they could, ha.
Since AMS sells their membership emails, someone(s) with money COULD canvass the membership with a properly worded survey.
WxMatt says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:47 am
It would be entertaining if they polled ex-AMS members. I suspect the results would not get published….
Would the AMS have complained about HI if the survey results were different?
Say for example the survey showed 100% of the members agreed with AGW. Would the AMS have complained if HI had sent the exact same email with different numbers?
Well, they did manage to stop Einstein from getting the Nobel for the Theory of Relativity in 1921, which he was originally cited for, and got it delayed until the Nobel Committee could come up with another reason to give him the award, in 1922: “For his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.”
Unfortunately, the story of this uproar is now behind The London Times paywall. I read it when it was free. Emotions were fierce because the other scientists claimed he stole Poincaré’s idea.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
davidmhoffer says:
December 2, 2013 at 12:07 pm
1. There are a large number of AMS members who have stated that they were NOT surveyed, despite having their email address on record. Why?
Interesting question with an obvious possible answer: Based upon previous surveys, they knew whom to survey, and whom not to survey, to get the intended results. If the following comment is in fact true, even that failed.
WxMatt says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:47 am
It was my understanding that the initial survey results were even less enthusiastic about the “consensus”, and they subsequently revised the survey questions to get better results. A colleague of mine- a now former member of the AMS- was surveyed TWICE for this with slightly revised questions designed to get a better consensus result.
When you consider the likely survey votes of the members who’ve quit the society over their treatment of this issue in the past, this is all somehow very encouraging. Maybe we really are winning?
I am not a member of the AMS or the AARP. But it seems to me that both are driven by agendas other than what one would think given their titles and are responding to entities that are political in nature
[snip – sorry, you don’t get to label people “denialists” here – mod]
Blue Sky says:December 2, 2013 at 2:29 pm
“Heartland has as much creditability as Peter Gleick.….Why muddy ourselves with Heartland?”
Your assertion is based on….. what, exactly? The NIPCC Reports are published through Heartland, Drs Soon, Idso, Carter, Singer and others associate with Heartland. Yes, the Kaczynski billboard was not the wisest thing to do, I chastised them over it myself, which they saw fit to have at their blog (http://ow.ly/rpbDS ), along with other pieces I wrote (e.g. http://ow.ly/iPn6u ). Do I have no credibility now because of the association?
Seems to me Heartland has been one of bigger bulwarks out there against the AGW crowd. Claim they ‘muddy’ the water, and you play straight into the hands of the Desmogblog bunch and their efforts to manufacture doubt about anything the skeptics say. That’s why Gore’s followers hammer on these little distractions, and why I thought the Kaczynski billboard showcased their one-trick pony tactic of making sure the public never focuses on the core problems.
[ TB says:
December 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Err – did you really mean that, Jim Clarke??
The idea that someone expert in a field of the science in question’s opinion is somehow more important that the average man/woman on the street? ]
Define expert.
IQ, # of papers, talks given at symposia, # of likes on facebook, $ research funding, Deans of Univeristies, etc…etc…etc…
I’ve dealt with a lot of “experts” with PhD’s in my years of academia, and have come to the conclusion that any ignorant clam can get a PhD, if they’re persistent.
Who U think is an expert is probably just one of the verbose 3% wannabees.
Oh, ok, I’ll use your euphemism instead, “skeptic.” My point was that the survey and Nuccitelli’s article actually go into the survey results, not just the 52% figure, which, if you are at all honest, completely mischaracterizes the survey results.
Among the figures conveniently missed by you and your cohorts at Heartland is that only 13% of survey respondents were climate scientists, which is the group from which the 97% consensus figure comes. The 93% figure from the AMS survey is pretty close.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/AMS-meteorologists-97-percent.html
“The AMS on the other hand is not comprised primarily of climate experts. Some of its members do climate research, but only 13 percent of survey participants described climate as their field of expertise. Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, this survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years (78 percent said it’s mostly human-caused, 10 percent said it’s equally caused by humans and natural processes, and 5 percent said the precise degree of human causation is unclear, but that humans have contributed). Just 2 percent of AMS climate experts said global warming is mostly natural, 1 percent said global warming isn’t happening, and the remaining 4 percent were unsure about global warming or human causation.”
Also, Heartland’s construction of the subject email was obviously meant to deceive. You’d have to be blind to not see that. Deception has been Heartland’s stock in trade since it cut its teeth denying that smoking caused cancer. To associate yourself with them diminishes your own credibility.