Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
There’s a new survey out by the Pew Research Center folks that’s getting lots of press. Much of the coverage mentions the following claim that the claimed 97% consensus is real but it’s only 87%. The survey reports a:
• 37-percentage point gap over whether climate change is mostly caused by human activity – 87% of AAAS scientists say it is, while 50% of the public does.
So what’s not to like? Well, the first oddity of the study is that we have absolutely no guarantee that the scientists are … well … scientists.
The study was done “in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)”. Here’s the description from the Pew Center of the method used:
The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 3,748 U.S.-based members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from September 11 to October 13, 2014. AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members from all scientific fields. Founded in 1848, AAAS publishes Science, one of the most widely circulated peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world. Membership in AAAS is open to all.
Sounds good … until you realize that not only is membership in AAAS “open to all”, but in addition anyone who subscribes to Science magazine is a member of AAAS … and for years Science magazine has been a strong supporter of the hypothesis that “climate change is mostly caused by human activity”, whatever that might mean.
So we are already dealing with a self-selected group of people, many of them not scientists, who read a magazine that for years has strongly supported the “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) hypothesis.
But wait … it gets worse. For starters, you’d think that the Pew Research folks would have made a selection of scientists that weren’t subscribers to a magazine that has an axe to grind. And you’d also think that they would have picked … well … scientists.
But failing both of those, once the Pew Center folks had foolishly chosen to sample from AAAS members, surely they would make their own random selection of the AAAS membership? … well, think again. Their methods section cited above goes on to say:
A simple random sample of AAAS members was selected for participation by the staff of AAAS.
At this point, I’ve got to assume that the good folks at Pew have lost the plot entirely. They let the staff of the AAAS, a group which by and large seems to have swallowed the climate koolaid without demur, choose a “random sample” of which “scientists” the Pew folks would interview. Yeah, that’s the ticket, that inspires confidence …
And it gets worse yet, because the self-selection increases:
A total of 19,984 members were mailed a letter requesting participation in the survey.
And out of those, how many were actually sampled?
A total of 3,748 members completed the survey for an overall response rate of 18.8%.
Then there’s the matter of the poorly worded question. They asked if “climate change is mostly due to human activity”, with 87% of “scientists” saying yes versus 50% of citizens. I hate this kind of vague question, with no time frame on it, no definition of “climate change”, and no definition of “mostly”. For example, the IPCC defines “climate change” as being human caused … but under the general definition, the climate has been changing forever. This means that the well is poisoned before we even start. And what period of time are they talking about? The last ten years, during which there has been no statistically significant warming? The last century? The period since industrialization? And is 51% “mostly” or not? A vague question like that means nothing even if the rest of the survey had been handled perfectly.
I gotta say … I used to respect the Pew Research folks, and I’ve looked at their methods in other studies without finding much that seemed odd.
But this survey? On my planet, this one goes directly into the circular file … at the end of all of that, I gotta figure that their study is 87% horse feathers, and 13% unicorn-generated methane …
Best to all, and don’t believe everything you read.
w.
AS ALWAYS: If you disagree with someone, please have the courtesy to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH so that all of us can understand the exact nature of what you object to.
And in the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of AAAS … but somehow they didn’t ask my opinion. I figure my invitation got lost in the mail …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phew research……..
Poo research !!
Willis – check out the below table. Out of N=3,748 total responses just N=270, or 7.2%, were identified as having “Earth Sciences” as their primary discipline. The vast majority of respondents N=1,802, nearly half, were from the “Bio/medical sciences” primary discipline.
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-A2-01.png
I realize this study was intended as a representative sample of “scientists” …. but the small share of respondents with potential domain specific experience seems somewhat surprising.
The ability to employ logic and reason is independent of the letters behind one’s name.
Alan,
You are no doubt correct, but the entire point of a survey of this type is to provide the basis for an ‘Appeal to Authority’ argument.
Clearly, if you’re building an Appeal to Authority argument, the question of who is granted Authority status is relevant.
Scott
You have hit on the most telling item, the fact that 1802 were from the Bio/Medical sciences and further there were 333 from the Social sciences and policy fields. Please, someone tell me how a neuroscientist or political scientist or sociologist or any number of scientists from any of the fields have knowledge greater than the general public.
On any of these poll, I would rather see the “attribution” issue pinned down a little and perhaps force the respondent to check off their views of the AGW/Natural Variability split by quintile or decile. Someone who would say 40% for AGW has more in common with the guy who checks off 60% than he would with someone at 10%, or any number of combinations. Yet the “majority” dichotomy puts them n the “warmist/consensus” vs “denier” camp.
Pew is pretty well respected on many social and political issues. I am surprised they did such a sloppy job with this one. I doubt the new 87% can be welcomed by the warmists. It will just get the public confused and start losing confidence in the 97% which has been drilled into the public consciousness. If we really want to confuse them, then the 52% for the American Meteorological poll ought to be publicized too. And a few others that will get the public to think “Hey, what is going on here anyway?”
Yes, exactly. What is going on here anyway?
hmmm. I’m over 65; primary discipline is bio-engineer (biomedical + engineering), graduate degree also in math/computer science, lots of study in physics + chemistry, AND I’m a registered member of the public.
How many votes do I get?
What’s behind Door #3? – Bernie Sanders
I’ll refrain from expressions about surveys.
I noticed long ago that amongst the most ignorant of high-handed dismissers of sceptics are scientists whose field has little or nothing to do with climate changes and why they happen.
Their supposed expertise in one scientific field seems to give them the illusion that they know more about a scientific field of which they know nothing (and can’t be bothered to find out) than a well-read lay-person who knows a great deal more about the subject.
Agreed – and let’s face it, the majority of “skeptics” are more knowledgeable about “the science” than even some of the “climate scientists”. Or maybe the word “some” should be “most”.
From The Pew Research Center:
Our methods
“We’re committed to meeting the highest methodological standards—and to exploring the newest frontiers of research.”
Our people
“We are led by Michael Dimock and have a staff of more than 130 people. Our experts combine the observational and storytelling skills of journalists with the analytical rigor of social scientists.”
Contact Michael Dimock
http://www.pewresearch.org/contact-form/#Michael-Dimock
It looks like Pew have let themselves down, according to their own standards. Use the link above to set them straight.
“… analytical rigor of social scientists.”
I am guessing that they are presenting this as a positive attribute…?
By restating the “Our people” blurb as “Storytelling as associated with low-end analysis” they have easily met their own standard.
Think Lewandowsky
Sasha,
Thanks for that link. Will do. I subscribed to Science for more than 20 years, so I can throw that back at them.
The problem is this: none of these publications or professional societies allow members to contact one another. They tightly control their membership information. What happens, then, is that a simple majority of their boards spin everything.
If I were writing the question, it would be more like this:
Human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming.
True / False (Circle one)
Next, I would provide for plenty of advance discussion prior to the polling. Both sides need to give their input. Then let the membership vote.
But if they did that, they would have a high risk of getting a result that they do not want. So they play games like this.
It is all propaganda, with a thin veneer of legitimacy. In every fair, moderated, public debate between believers in man-made global warming (MMGW) and climate skeptics, the skeptics won every time. So the alarmist clique stopped debating. Now their focus is on having their lemmings post their MMGW narrative non-stop online, and using sound bites in the media. The fact that they feel they have to do that, instead of standing toe to toe and hashing it out in public, shows us they have plenty to hide.
They have lost the debate. Now it’s all propaganda like this. That tells thinking people who is right, and who is playing games.
This isn’t something new for Science. For similar reasons I cancelled my long time subscription in the late 1990’s. Does that mean I’m no longer a scientist?
“the analytical rigor of social scientists.” Rigor mortis.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00172.1
In 2012, a total of 22 state and extension climatologists were selected through a purposive sample to represent main outlets of publicly available and location-specific climate information in the region. Nineteen of these climatologists completed a pre-interview survey that included the climate change question (see Wilke 2013). Consistent with the many disciplinary scientists in the two USDA-NIFA projects, over 90% of the climatologists agreed that climate change is occurring while none believed that it is not occurring (Table 1). Fifty-three percent [10 of 19] attributed climate change primarily to human activities.
An online survey of about 1600 private and public agricultural advisors was conducted in 2012 in four states (Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Nebraska) in the Midwestern United States. Three-quarters of these advisors believed that climate change is occurring, with 12% [197 of 1,605] of them believing that it is mostly caused by human activities (Table 1).
Extension educators are a unique set of agricultural advisors who serve to connect and translate research from universities to farmers in order to decrease risk to the farm enterprise and increase productive capacity and resilience. Typically, Extension educators have at least a Masters degree and are trained in agronomic sciences, which may not include climate sciences.Almost 75% of the Extension educators [239 respondents] believed in climate change, with over 19% [46 of 239] attributing climate change mostly to human activities (Table 1).
—–
For meteorologists, the percentages are also low (~25%) for primary human attribution. (see below)
For geologists, the percentages are about 50/50 for primary human attribution. (see below)
—–
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/TV_Meteorologists_Survey_Findings_(March_2010).pdf
Only 31% of 571 meteorologists surveyed (2010) who are members of the American Meteorological Association and National Weather Association agree that global warming is “caused mostly by human activities.”
—–
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/2011_Mason_AMS_NWA_Weathercaster_Survey_Report_NA_doc_pdf%281%29.pdf
Only 19% of 430 responding meteorologists surveyed (2011) who are members of the American Meterological Society and/or the National Weather Association believe the climate changes due to “mostly human causes.”
—–
http://soapbox.geology.utoronto.ca/Members/miall/miall_bib/pdfs/ISI-000261047300007.pdf
In a Canada-wide survey of earth scientists (geologists) conducted in 2007, it was found that “57% agree (17% strongly, 40% somewhat) that climate change within the last few decades has been driven primarily by human or anthropogenic influences.”
—–
http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/TAG%27s/TAG%20167WEB.pdf
An independent poll of members of the [Australian Geological] Society (conducted in 2010) showed that a majority (53% of 626 members who responded) did not agree with the Society’s position statement [that climate change is primarily caused by humans]. The Executive then agreed to withdraw that statement from the Society’s website, but by then it had been picked up by other websites and continues to be freely available.
“Only 19% of 430 responding meteorologists surveyed (2011) who are members of the American Meterological Society and/or the National Weather Association believe the climate changes due to “mostly human causes.”
One of those is me(I had the AMS and NWA seals when I was on television).
To discredit our view, I often hear “well you guys are not climate scientists and only forecast weather”
At the University of Michigan, in our cloud physics, atmospheric radiation and other classes, they didn’t have a section for meteorology and one for climate. It’s the same atmosphere and same physical laws. Students going on to meteorology or careers in climate science had the same undergrad classes.
My opinion on the disparity of opinion on this topic between meteorologists and climate scientists is the meteorologists must reconcile models and reality every single day. There is no group that observe the actual atmosphere more comprehensively……….in the real world.
Climate scientists can use theories and models and projections that are wrong for decades because they period to actually reconcile reality vs projections is so distant as to never face authentic accountability.
I heard this joke a few times about climate scientists(just a joke) from a group of meteorologists.
Climate scientists and climatologists are just meteorologists that couldn’t forecast the weather.
That said, Climate scientists in general have more PHD’s than meteorologists so more academic learning.
However, I don’t care if you are the smartest man on the planet or have numerous degrees that taught you every theory known in physics and the atmosphere. I still know more things about the real atmosphere, especially with respect to the models that predict it from 33 years of comprehensive observations and analysis of the global atmosphere.
That’s exactly why the % of meteorologists drinking the cool aide is lower.
I’ve posted this link to Nir Shaviv’s blog several times. His post agrees with you 100%
http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions
According to the AR4 report, the “likely equilibrium range of sensitivity” was 2.0 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. According to the newer AR5 report, it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, i.e., the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write: “This assessment reflects improved understanding”. How ridiculous can you be?
…One reason for the lack of improved understanding could be incompetence of the people in the field. …
I think the real reason why there is no improvement in the understanding of climate sensitivity is the following. If you have a theory which is correct, then as progressively more data comes in, the agreement becomes better. Sure, occasionally some tweaks have to be made, but overall there is an improved agreement. However, if the basic premises of a theory are wrong, then there is no improved agreement as more data is collected. In fact, it is usually the opposite that takes place, the disagreement increases. In other words, the above behavior reflects the fact that the IPCC and alike are captives of a wrong conception.”
kennethrichards,
As time passes, we learn more. Your group with the slight majority blaming human emissions was polled on 2007. But your later group, polled in 2010, shows only a minority agreeing that human emissions are the primary cause. The following year that minority dropped to only 19%.
Then there is Planet Earth, which continues to chug along in stasis, neither warming nor cooling. That has been going on for close to twenty years now, and every year that passes makes it harder for the alarmist clique to promote their MMGW narrative.
Well, I know about 20 scientists (including myself).
None believe in CAGW. However, most believe AGW is real, but almost certainly not significant nor dangerous, and all ask the same question: “How can you possibly hope to quantify it?”
We all recognise climate change is happening, but this is not something which suddenly started around 1950, as it has been ongoing for over 4 billion years.
As for the study, like so much in ‘climate science’, you lift up the stone and look underneath and there is usually little or nothing there which is relevant, after the spin and hyperbole have been removed.
Climate questions:
Q.20F1 Which of these three statements about the earth’s temperature comes closest to your view?
-The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels
(50% public – 87% AAAS)
-The earth is getting warmer mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment
(23% public – 9% AAAS)
-There is no solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer
(25% public – 3% AAAS)
-Don’t know/Refused
(2% public – 1% AAAS)
Q.21AF2 From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on
earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?
Q.21BF2 Do you believe that the earth is getting warmer [mostly because of
human activity such as burning fossil fuels/mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s
environment]?
Q.21AF2 From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on
earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?
Q.21CF2 Do you think that we just don’t know enough yet about whether the Earth is getting warmer or
do you think it’s just not happening?
Q.23 From what you’ve heard or read, do scientists generally agree that the earth is getting warmer
because of human activity, or do they not generally agree about this?
-Yes, scientists generally agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity
-No, scientists do not generally agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity
-Don’t know/Refused
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_Science-and-society_012915.pdf
The Q.23 you give above is essentially asking the respondent to summarize what has been reported, which is not the same thing as what the respondent believes at all.
And your point is?
James
January 30, 2015 at 12:16 pm
The point is that if you ask an atheist “does the bible say god exists” you will get a 100% yes.
Now ask ‘does god exist’ and you will get a 100% no.
The question, at best, determines whether the literature has been read and understood and cannot be used to determine anything about what the respondent believes.
If I’m reading it correctly they only asked the FIRST question – Q.20F1 – to both AAAS members and the public. The remaining questions were only asked to the public. A single question about climate to the AAAS respondents – how ridiculous. Yet we’ll be hearing about “scientists say 87% consensus global warming is real and humans are the primary cause”
What a load of crap.
97% of the people I come across, who have an opinion on MMGW, are just regurgitating headlines. So the real success of the Warnists is to mainstream the possession of an opinion. As an alternative, ask someone about the existence of Quarks or some such and you might get nasty stares.
I still say that asking “climate scientists” if AGW is real is the same as asking Catholics if the Pope is real. You’re still not going to get 100%, but close…
Okay, so this needs a climate “science” treatment:
87% of 18.8% selected respondents responded, so that’s… 87 * 18.8 = 1635.6, 50% of the general public agreed, so that’s 817.8, the warmest year on record is now 2014, add that for 2831.8, with a confidence of 38%, so 1076.084 (we’ll round that one), and the margin of warming is 0.02K, which results in 21.52. And double that, to get the universally accepted answer of 42.
Feel free to nominate me for Nobel Peace Prizes or grants or whatever.
I can’t imagine anyone graduating from college in the last 25 years with a degree in the “climate science” fields if they had a hint of skepticism when they were finished. Talk about indoctrination. If the undergrad went to his advisor and said they wanted to do their thesis in falsifying AGW, they would have quickly been transferred over to the School of Medieval Lithuanian Literature with a note to the receiving Dean “Give this kid something to do. He has too much imagination and scientific inquisitiveness to fit into our program.”
I’m not a Catholic but I do believe in the reality of the Pope.
That still requires faith… these days, with CG, actors, shadowy groups attempting to gain control of religions and institutions, can you honestly say there is tangible proof of the existence of a Pope?
This pope is a Marxist. (Before you get angry, understand what a Marxist is and read the Marxist things this pope has said.)
To be a Marxist, you must believe in Marx. I don’t think the Pope does that, especially as Atheism in a key component in Marx.
There are varieties of Communism that are not Marxist.
87% x 18.8% = 83,6% of AAAS members don’t agree with the question
“Best to all, and don’t believe everything you read.”
I don’t.
Specifically, what was written above, because it contains more fallacies than words!
Gotta wonder about a man who can’t read or won’t follow a simple request to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH …
w.
eh, Tautological gobilty gook
thats at ICU
ICU
Man up. If there are fallacies, identify them. Or is there no there, there?
I can only agree, rubbish from square one.
John Marshall @ur momisugly 2:40am and ICU @ur momisugly2:44am
-“More fallacies than words”
There must be in excess of 500 words in Willis’s informative article. I for one would settle for you listing just 50 of the fallacies that you claim it contains.
Or just one.
There is a point when #’s, , %’s , ~’s. margin’s, may be’s, etc etc just make my head spin, and this is one of them, wouldn’t just using 79% instead of 97% have been easier? (just do a 180 spin?).
Its really simple, for example 100 people (the whole group) are asked a question , out of those 50 say yes and 50 say no . Therefore, you can say that 50% of whole group say yes.
However , and its a big however , when you do not know the size of whole group you cannot say what percentage any number of people is of the whole group.
How many climate ‘scientists’ are there , answer we do not know . In fact, there is no even an agreed definition of what a climate ‘scientists’ is. Given it has been used as a term to describe railway engineers to failed politicians to people whose weather knowledge is little better than looking at a pine cone to see if it will rain . Then you can see that the whole group could be massive in size or it could be a lot smaller if you could have an agreed definition. However, in both cases its ‘unknown’, therefore you cannot know what percentage of the whole group any number of people is.
You should give people credit when they done a good job , and one thing that the alarmists have done a ‘good job’ in is their ability to make a claim that has much value as ‘nine out of ten cats prefer’ sounds like it actually has a meaning.
And that is before we get to the not inconsiderable problem of what it is they agree to and how strong is that agreement.
is 87% really the new 97%? I thought it was the other way around. Before Skeptical Science settled on its false story that it found a 97% consensus humans have caused 50+% of the observed global warming, they said that consensus was 87%.
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2014/12/skeptical-science-says-87-is-97/
Good catch, Brandon. So just as with climate science itself and the lack of progress in narrowing the bounds of the “climate sensitivity”, after years of work and study we’re back where we started …
Brandon says:
is 87% really the new 97%?
Yes. The ‘97%’ was so utterly preposterous that they are now backing and filling. It’s a climbdown.
What I would have done if I were their Minister of Propaganda is to fabricate a number like 61.8%, or 57.5%. Something at least believable at first glance.
But, NO-O-O-O-O, as Mr. Bill would say. They had to go and make their new invention a whopping ‘87%’.
That is still a preposterous number, which only the True Believer climate cult will buy into.
Willis Eschenbach, thanks. I was shocked to discover that post. It clearly shows Dana Nuccitelli interpreting the Cook et al data in one way (using the approach he described before the ratings were done), a way he since vehemently criticized people for using, presumably because it contradicts the false story Cook et al are promoting about their work (that they found a 97% consensus saying humans cause 50+% of the observed global warming).
dbstealey, normally I would take issue with a comment suggesting people have fabricated results. However, in this case, I can’t. John Cook spent time examining his data set prior to coming up with the rating criteria. He discussed the nature of his data set in his forum. He even discussed how the criteria would affect the results (ensuring the number wouldn’t be too high by over-representing “skeptic” papers under his criteria). And as that post of mine shows, after they discovered their stated approach to examining their data would give embarrassing results, they changed it.
So yeah, I think calling his results fabricated is understandable.
Then there’s the matter of the poorly worded question. They asked if “climate change is mostly due to human activity”, with 87% of “scientists” saying yes versus 50% of citizens.
As human activity includes laying mega tons of concrete and tarmac and the irrigation of millons of square miles of agricultural land, it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’ve affected the climate.
As I keep asking alarmists, “What exactly is it that you think I’m denying?” They rarely have a coherent answer, because they’re not usually even sure what it is that they believe in.
To say that we’re not affecting local climate would be ridiculous. But the “believing in” aspect has the unspoken assumption that what is happening is “bad”, or “destructive”, or “catastrophic”, while all of the things that go along with it are simply not happening (accelerating sea level rise, dangerous warming, horrible droughts, horrible floods, increased cyclonic activity, etc.)
I can show people charts until the cows come home, they simply refuse to look at them.
“What is it that you think I’m denying?”
——————
Asking a simple question like that can quickly turn a situation volatile.
Alan Robinson,
There are lots of fun questions like that:
“What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
Answer: Four hundreths of one percent; or 4 parts in 10,000, up from 3 parts in 10,000 over the past century; or, 0.00004 of the air is CO2. If China puts lots ‘n’ lots more CO2 into the air, it might eventually go as high as 0.00005. Yikes!
Or:
“How much have global temperatures risen in the past century?”
Answer: Only 0.7ºC. But temperatures have changed naturally by TENS of degrees in the past, with no human emissions to blame for it.
But don’t talk down to anyone! Explain that it’s just alarmist spin by the rent-seekers, who have been cashing in on the MMGW scare. Ridicule those self-serving scientists — and remind folks that the UN is behind it, pushing for their ‘carbon tax’. Because it really is us against them.
I agree . Every human activity from the late Stone Age onward has affected the environment and the climate . Even if one accepts the more moderate AGW position of 2C / doubling of CO2 , we should still ask ourselves if the damage of the human activity causing that change outweighs the gains to society and the individual.
We do this all the time . Take the introduction of the motorcar as an example. Its appearance on the roads led to immediate increase in death and injury , but it also led to an increase in individual freedom , more efficient transport of goods , etc . This is still the case and 100 years later societies around the world have decided that the gains from cars and trucks outweigh the human risks and costs except in specific urban areas .
It could be argued that the disadvantages of a carbon based economy are greatly outweighed by the benefits to quality of life . This is the attitude currently adopted by a significant proportion of the population, despite the incessant propaganda to the contrary .
This attitude does not of course exclude the use of renewables where sensible and other options impractical.
(BTW: I appreciate that what I have said contradicts the Stern report and that I have absolutely no qualifications in Social Science .)
LOL After the “giant gap” whine, STEM gets a pat on the back, objective achieve!
There’s only so much climate. If you add climate to some places then you must be getting less climate in other places. Be thankful you are not in a place with no climate at all.
If I spit in the ocean, I have “affected the climate”. Whatever effect man has had on “the climate”, it can’t be sussed out of the noise. It can not, and has not been measured. It can only be guessed at. So, it all boils down to belief, not science. These sorts of polls are garbage in garbage out. They are worse than useless.
It’s strange that the kind of evidence that people seek for cAGW is surveys of opinion.
Most physical sciences seeks evidence of the physical type – observations.
It is the social sciences that believe their constructs are socially created – without observable physical reality independent of the social milieu.
Do the AAAS say why they thought this measure was appropriate?
+1
I posted this long ago, but I think it is still relevant. An overheard converstation:
I heard once there are lies, dam lies and then there is statistics. I never could figure out why lying about dams was so bad, but I think I got the point. Anyway, I read a report recently about people who don’t believe global warming is going to end the world unless we do just what the ones who know best tell us. I think the word for those people who don’t believe is “deniers”.
Anyway this report said that statistically being a denier is correlated with being a creationist. Another one I read a while ago said that being a denier is correlated with being a conspiracy theorist. It was true because statistics said it was. Then I remembered the one that said statistically there was a 97% consensus that climate scientists believe global warming is going to end the world and all. Well that seemed really cool and the headlines on the reports of the studies sounded like the truth was out there, I mean it was just settled and if you were a denier of that then you were just a nut.
Now, I am really into the climate thing, okay, and I just always wanted to do something to contribute to climate science. Not the icky part, the part about physics and chemistry and isotopes and measuring and observing stuff, for that you have to be an honest to goodness Qualified Climate Scientist (QCS). I know that. I thought maybe I could do the part about how true climate science is, like how people believe it, you know, using statistics.
So I asked a friend of mine who is for real a QCS if he thought I could do the part about consensus. He said, sure, as long as I stayed away from the hard part and just did consensus it would be okay. He said the guy who did the 97% thing just had a bachelor’s degree in physics, and even though that guy isn’t a Qualified Climate Scientist, it was okay for that guy to do consensus stuff. My friend said lots of the people who do the consensus part are even just engineers, or economists, or psychologists, so it is okay to do it as long as you use statistics. My friend knows I have at least a bachelor’s degree in physics so he knew I could do it too.
I thought, Great! I told my friend I was so excited about doing climate science.
But he said, no, no, no! If I tried to do climate science, not just the consensus part, then that would be dangerous. He said I should just do safe, consensual climate science. So I said okay, I will. He told me I would be okay just so long as I made sure to be safe, to use statistics whenever I did consensual climate science.
I was so excited. I went back to my computer to do some safe, consensual climate science, but when I got there I just kind of stared at the computer. I thought okay, what now? So I called my friend up and asked him. He said I needed data. So I said okay, how do I get data? He said it is easy for consensual climate science, all you have to do is google, no messy instruments or lab things. I said great, thanks, and hung up.
So first, by googling, I found this site: http://www.isidewith.com/poll/965637 . It asks people “Is Global Warming a threat to the environment?” Yes or No. I thought cool, that’s just what I want. I clicked on the results for different political parties and the numbers (statistics!!) are:
Party % Yes %No
Democrat 97 3
Republican 16 84
Libertarian 36 64
Green 97 3
Socialist 97 3
It was so fun I found another web site (by googling!) here:http://www.gallup.com/poll/158978/democrats-republicans-diverge-capitalism-federal-gov.aspx that asked Republicans and Republican Leaners (RRL) versus Democrats and Democrat Leaners (DDL) if they liked different stuff like socialism and all. So the numbers (more statistics!!) were
Group Percent Positive toward Socialism
DDL 53
RRL 23
So now I thought how cool would it be to find out the correlation between liking socialism and believing global warming is a threat to the environment. So I combined the numbers (statistics!) like this
Party % Like Socialism %Yes GW is a threat
Republican 23 16
Libertarian 23 36
Democrat 53 97
Green 75 97
Socialist 100 97
I had to fill in the numbers for Libertarians and Greens who liked Socialism because the Gallup poll didn’t ask them, just DDLs and RRLs. But I knew just how to do it because I had read a story about a paper about Kriging climate data. Not being a QCS, I don’t know exactly how it works but I think it is like filling in data you don’t have with what you think it should be. So I figured Libertarians are kind of like RRLs so I put in 23% for them liking socialism. Then I figured Greens seemed like halfway between Democrats and Socialists, because I read the UK Guardian sometimes and that’s just how it seems. So I filled in 75% for Greens liking Socialism. I don’t think it is exactly Kriging, so I call what I did blitzfitzkrieging, which I think means lightning fitting attack or something in German.
So, I put the numbers in Excel and did a correl(%Like Socialism,%YesGWThreat) and wow, the correlation is 0.85 between believing in GW and liking socialism. That’s really high, I think. I remember the creationist study had just 0.25 correlation between “deniers” and creationists and they said that was significant. I was so excited because 0.85 was like so much higher than 0.25 it just has to be true, I mean it is really settled. Next I needed a title for my study so first I thought “Belief in Global Warming is Correlated with Belief in Socialism at 0.85.” But then I noticed that the titles used by the guys who did consensual climate science were a lot shorter, so I just shortened it to “Global Warmists are Socialists.” And it is so cool because the statistics say it is true.
Consensual climate science felt so good I just couldn’t stop. So I noticed that 97% of each of Democrats, Greens and Socialists believed in global warming being a threat. And then I noticed, like wow, the 97% consensus study got that same number, 97%. So I did a little blitzfitzkrieging and figured the guys who did the ratings for that study were either Democrats, Greens or Socialists and did a correlation between what they believed at first and what they got from their study and OMG, the correlation is 1! I tried to think of a title for my little study on that and after shortening it I figured it should be “Consensus Raters get Results They Believe Already.”
I called my QCS friend and told him my results and he said I was doing just great. I told him I was going to keep doing consensual climate science every chance I get. He said great and just make sure I was doing it safely. I said I sure am, I am using statistics every time.
FAH, I sincerely hope you keep posting items like this. I am humbled by your masterpiece.
Eric
Absolutely Madcap, I love it.
“blitzfitzkrieging” – truly inspired!
Posts like this one should start with a Coffee Alert, to warn the unwary.
FAH,
Well, you have me convinced. That is every bit as sciencey as most of what the usual suspects post here. I think you should be their king.
I too am an AAAS member, in section W for the Atmospheric Sciences. I don’t remember receiving an invitation. If I had, I would most certainly have participated. So what percentage of the total AAAS membership was polled?
And I agree that this was essentially an opinion poll. Members were asked what they ‘felt’ was the correct answer, not what they could prove. I’ve said this before, let me reiterate, the vast majority of scientists base their opinions about AGW on what they read in the funny papers, just like the rest of the public. Very few have bothered to read the IPPC assessments, much less the referenced papers that supposedly support its conclusions. The reason a larger percentage of scientists agree with the AGW contention is that they feel they must show solidarity with fellow scientists and this is how they circle the wagons.
good point – there will be a bias/wish to believe in the integrity of scientists in other fields. We do not walk down the street accusing people of being liars unless we have evidence; to ask scientists to impune the work of other scientists without evidence is silly, without evidence of dishonesty they can only answer one way,
It must be obvious to the presenters (and survey organisers) that the 18 year hiatus in the measurements of warming is important context. For instance the question Q.20F1 “The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels” sets out to give the impression that warming is happening now, when the fact has not been measured as happening. At what point does omission become the equivalent of deliberately misleading or lying to the public? The question sets up a question built on a fabrication in order to put the answers in the mouths of the people surveyed.
Whilst driving yesterday I heard a “science” program discussing a new survey conducted by an Oxford University group which they said shows that the numbers of people believing that Extreme weather events are linked to Global warming is growing. They said that people affected by floods in the West Country were more likely to believe in the connection than members of the general public who had not experience the flooding. Again there is lots of evidence that the floods has aggravating factors (they had stopped dredging rivers and the trees in surrounding hills had been cut down etc>)
The BBC science program was very strong in their advocacy that AGW is becoming more widely accepted and believed by scientists and the public and that this was a very good thing. No where did anyone suggest that the warming had stopped over the last eighteen years. (I did miss the beginning of the program).
A little “amuse bouche” from the BBC this lunch time . In London they are reenacting the last journey of Winston Churchill along the Thames , 50 years ago today . According to the BBC commentator :
” Now as then it is bitterly cold”
50 years of relentless global warming , extra 100ppm of CO2, January in London can still be bitterly cold. Are we perhaps just getting too obsessed with a nonproblem ? Is it not more worrying that Putin can fly his bombers close to our south coast with arrogant , indeed sneering , impunity, or that our much vaunted NHS appears close to collapse in some vital areas ?
Actually the reporting on Putin is almost as misinformed as the reporting on AGW..Last October I was in Chechnya and Dagestan – the BBC tell us this is the most dangerous place in Europe, they obviously never visit Swansea. Our media are failing us very badly
I canmonly summarise this research with a picture:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAgQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Ffunny%2Fcomments%2F2j5vul%2F&ei=FoXLVLWaDOeC7gaimIDYBg&psig=AFQjCNEwP1pDoeEzPyvQH2_FEB0NBQjCnA&ust=1422710422313917
My number is: 93 AC.