New AMS survey busts the 97% climate consensus claim

Fully a third don’t agree that man is the primary driver

Another survey of 4,092 members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) from George Mason University (home of Shukla and the RICO20) on climate change attitudes in that organization was released yesterday. However, the survey itself is tainted with the stench of the RICO20 and their calls for prosecution and jailing of “climate deniers”.

The survey results show a general acceptance of the view that climate change is happening, and that the cause is partly due to human activity, but there is a contingent that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Dr. Roy Spencer notes on his blog:

But what I find interesting is that the supposed 97% consensus on climate change (which we know is bogus anyway) turns into only 67% when we consider the number of people who believe climate change is mostly or entirely caused by humans, as indicated by this bar chart:


Fully 33% either believe climate change is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half-manmade (I tend toward that last category)…or simply think we “don’t know”.

For something that is supposed to be “settled science”, I find that rather remarkable.

Even given that 1/3 who don’t attribute man-made causes, personally, I think the numbers aren’t fully representative of what AMS members really think and that 1/3 number would actually be higher.

Two colleagues I know locally also got this survey, and they didn’t send it in because they didn’t believe their opinion or identity would actually be protected. Given that the operator of the survey, George Mason University is a hotbed of calls for prosecution and jailing of “deniers”, and that Edward Maibach is one of the people who signed the letter to the Whitehouse and who operated this particular AMS survey, I can’t say that I blame them. I wouldn’t have sent it in either when the man asking the questions might flag you for criminal prosecution for having an opinion he doesn’t like.

Survey results are available here:


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Typo in headline.

george e. smith

What a great way to fill the prisons. Take a poll, and then jail those respondants who disagree with you. I’m with Dr. Roy I just don’t know; and I also have a strong opinion; but it’s an opinion.
I also have another opinion; that we will never know; and that too is just an opinion.
And like always, I’m here to learn. Now if John Christy and Dr. Roy ever say they believe they know, then my ears will prick up. And that’s about as definitive a statement, I can make on the subject. And GMU is still the home of the very handsome, and even smarter Walter E. Williams (never forget the E), so that institution is not totally lost yet.

I met Walter E. Williams many years ago. I loved his explanation of how grandmothers could be the top basketball professionals – it depends on the rules of the game. If the rules said you had to knit a doily before you could shoot at the basket, then the grandmothers might have the edge.

I don’t believe the Democrats truly believe in global warming. If there is global warming, and all life on earth is about to be wiped out by catastrophic changes, as we are being told, then their solution (a tax) is just ridiculous. Really? Just give us a tax and everything is going to be hokey dokey pokey. Wow. Who knew?


The carbon tax would increase the cost of oil and gas and people would seek alternatives for home heating and transportation that would reduce their use of fossil fuels. It is pretty simple.


The carbon tax would increase the cost of oil and gas and people would seek alternatives for home heating and transportation that would reduce their use of fossil fuels. It is pretty simple.

And all of that 1.3 trillion “new tax money” would go to the government. Who would then use it to reward their friends, their donors, their voters. And NONE of that new wasted money funneled from the working public to the government’s favored classes would reduce the world’s global average temperature by even 0.01 degree. It sure is simple, though. The government gets more money, more control, endless opportunities for more taxes and more control.

Fly over Bob

Yes Luke, Your response is pretty simple. The poorest among us pay the highest taxes as a percentage of their income. Good idea tax the poor! Also, if global warming were so important why are those proposing the taxes not acting accordingly? They fly here and there to carbon expensive gatherings and come away with a plan to kill off the poor, where ever they may be found! More people DIE from the cold than from the heat.
On the topic of coal, what is it, how was it produced? Coal is highly compressed plant matter. That plant matter was produced under climatic conditions much like what we have NOW! If we burned ALL the coal the worst case scenario would be a lush climate where plants and animals thrive. By all means prevent that with a tax.


The only carbon tax I would support would return the income as dividends. That way those who are proactive and switch to solutions that use less carbon would come out ahead. From the website.
A carbon tax is an “upstream” tax on the carbon contents of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) and biofuels.
A carbon tax is the most efficient means to instill crucial price signals that spur carbon-reducing investment. Download our spreadsheet to input your own tax levels and see how fast U.S. emissions will fall.
A carbon tax will raise fossil fuel prices — that’s the point. The impact on households can be softened through “dividends” (revenue distributions) and/or reducing other taxes that discourage hiring and investing (“tax-shifting or swapping”).
Carbon taxing is an antidote to rigged corporate energy pricing. Unlike cap-and-trade, carbon taxes don’t create complex and easily-gamed “carbon markets” with allowances, trading and offsets.


Bob says:
“If we burned ALL the coal the worst case scenario would be a lush climate where plants and animals thrive.”
And sea levels would be about 70 m higher than today. Do you really want that?comment image?w=450&h=290


Why would modelling show a 1 metre increase in sea levels at 16 degrees by the year 2100 yet empirical evidence shows the piloscene period sea level was 40m higher when the temperature was 15 degrees. Or the fact that the Eocene period was 70 m higher when temperatures we at 18-19 degrees.
Luke, please reconcile this discrepancy if co2 is the driver of global warming. After all, if co2 was the problem, the world would be drowning right now irrespective of which period you chose to compare the modelling to. Over to you Luke, I will be fascinated to read how you will reconcile this mismatch of information.

Phil's Dad

I’m afraid history tends to indicate that increasing the cost of oil via a “carbon tax” (or any other mechanism) has little or no effect on consumption levels or the quest for alternatives.
Price over the past ten years (all over the place)
Consumption over the same period (pretty flat, especially in the USA)
A tax of this kind (pretty) simply would not work.


There is a time lag. Temperatures are lagging the rapid increase in CO2 and melting of the large ice sheets will lag the rising temperature- just like when you apply heat to a pot of water, it doesn’t boil instantly.
Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures. (Current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels.) The full process could take hundreds of years—perhaps more than a thousand—to play out. Climate scientists call the full temperature rise from doubled carbon dioxide concentrations the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

You mean when you apply heat to a pan, from 93 million miles away, filter the energy through an atmosphere that blocks roughly 30% of the energy from the heat source, and then only apply that heat to half of the pan at a time while the other side cools off. Right?
If you add more CO2 between the pan and the burner, will the water in it boil faster?


Thank you for NOT taking the time to explain the discrepancy in the data set you posted. Seriously Luke, you want the planet to worry about what MAY happen in a few hundred to a thousand years time when it there is no clear evidence to show if CO2 is the main driver of global warming?
Perhaps a refresher of Petit et al and the Vostok paper should remind you of the fallacy of writing certainties when other factors need to be considered.
Luke, if you believe CO2 is the problem, guess what, you won’t be around to see any change in the environment as natural variations take place. Really sucks Luke to waste your time being this one eyed.


You are missing the point. 70 meters of sea level rise in a few hundred years means significant rise this century. Do you really want your kids paying the cost of dealing with 1 or 2 m of sea level rise?

As pointed out by kennethrichards in the Names Hansen thread, absolute GSLR= 1.8mm per year. Or 180mms per century. Or 540 mm in a “few hundred years”. There are 1,000 mms in one meter. So at the current rate of 1.8 mms per year, it would take 550 years to reach even 1 meter of sea level rise. So, it would be insanity to think my children will have to deal with a “1-2 meter rise”. Even if the rate doubled…or tripled! I might worry about my grandchildren but I believe they will have a far better understanding of the planet and more advanced technology by then, so they’ll be fine either way.
But, I do KNOW that if we cripple the world’s economies by stopping fossil fuel use without an equally efficient and inexpensive source of energy to replace it, our kids WILL pay dearly for that! Doing it on pure speculation and miscalculations seems to be a lot closer to insanity (as well as unloving and cruel) rather than prudence don’t you think?

Kalifornia Kook

Add carbon taxes and people will reduce use of fossil fuels? Then how come so many of us find a fireplace comforting? Because we don’t have to huddle around a barrel. We can warm the house by way of wood we pick up in the local woods and forests. Kind of like they did in Haiti….

Tom O

Quote –
March 26, 2016 at 6:14 am
The carbon tax would increase the cost of oil and gas and people would seek alternatives for home heating and transportation that would reduce their use of fossil fuels. It is pretty simple.
and here’s a no-brainer Luke, what if there really isn’t any alternatives at this time? Do people just freeze to death to pay the tax? And the truth is, there really isn’t any alternatives that they can afford, or they already would be using them.


Not all Democrats, Just Liberals who have always lacked the emotional stability to accept constant rejection of every cause they champion ! As a country, we have long accepted the premise that those who continuously predict the end of the world are deserving of psychiatric counseling at least with log term confinement as the preferred option !


The “low carbon” alternative for a lot (but not all or even most) of fossil fuel use was there the whole time, and the republicrats (with emphasis on the crats) made everything possible to make it ridiculously costly, frightening and unmanageable.
(In case you haven’t caught up, it’s called nuclear fission.)


Meanwhile 40000 people in Europe die because they can’t afford to heat their homes in winter


..That’s like taking a poll in prison and asking the prisoners ” Are you innocent and should you be set free ? ” ..Hmmm, I wonder if they’d get only 97% !! LOL

Patrick MJD

In Australia we can’t call prisons and prisoners prisons and prisoners. We have to call them “correctional centers” and “inmates”. AND, inmates get laptops too, restricted. Sure, any savvy PC/internet person can get past that “security”.

george e. smith

Aren’t they just Native Neo-Aussies anyway ??

George Edwards

As someone in the Nineteenth Century said, Australia is a nation of convicts, who should be grateful for anything they are given short of hanging.
So there.

Chip Javert

Uh…no, not exactly.
Using your construct, it’s like asking prisoners if the prosecutors (not defense attorneys) in their cases were honest & competent.

David A

It appears to me that the “mostly by human activity” camp can fall into the skeptic view as well, as the warming so far observed is far below the IPCC projections, and if that warming is 30 percent natural, then they are even further off. This leaves only one third at best supporting the CAGW narrative. Actually it leaves zero as supporting the CAGW narrative, as none were questioned on the benefits vs. harms of said warming.

Evan Jones

Heck, I’d answer Yes to both the Orsekes and Cook survey questions. And I am a very strong skeptic. You’d be surprised at how innocuous those questions actually are. Neither addresses amounts, neither addresses danger assessment, neither addresses policy.


Did this AMS survey ask about how dangerous warming was felt to be and what should be done to counter it? (E.g., renewables vs. nuclear.)

Justin G

You’re a believer. You think the atmosphere heats the planet. You simply don’t agree with those like you, that the mysterious power you all believe in, can damage civilization.

Evan Jones
March 25, 2016 at 6:52 am
Heck, I’d answer Yes to both the Orsekes and Cook survey questions. And I am a very strong skeptic. You’d be surprised at hoe innocuous those questions actually are. Neither addresses amounts, neither addresses danger assessment, neither addresses policy.

David A

Justin, the potential for GHGs to warm the atmosphere is not mysterious. Any energy in the system, (atmosphere, oceans, land) which stays longer (increased residence time as GHGs do, sometimes redirecting some LWIR back into the lower atmosphere) is warming. Evan Jones position is rational, and likely incorporates the majority of skeptics.

Evan Jones

Nearly all skeptics in the journals think a change in atmospheric content can heat the planet. The question always avoided is how much. (And I actually think it can and has helped civilization.)

John Harmsworth

From what I see of modern climate “science” peer review I doubt most of them read or understood the question before nodding yes and sticking their hand out.


Back in the 1980s, I knew a paleontologist graduate student. We’d sit around and talk about whatever for hours at a time.
Once, I mentioned the Chicxulub crater, and how the impact might have caused a mass extinction (it was a pretty hot subject at the time).
He informed me, in no uncertain terms, that no serious scientists thought that had actually happened. It was just some geologists wasting everyone’s time.


What a straw man argument. What the heck is this anecdote supposed to mean anyways? This doesn’t bust the original survey at all, actually. Opinions oscillate with time and so do the number of responses, so I wouldn’t expect to see 97% exactly on another survey. Added to that, this survey was only to one scientific society, not all of them. And who knows how the surveys were distributed for these supposed results? Were they spread in a random and fair manner? I highly doubt it. How do I know this graph wasn’t made up completely? There’s no link to the actual survey document. This is so laughably unscientific. You trolls have fun denying real science.


I don’t believe that 1% saying “no climate change over the last 50 years” is even remotely true.
Climate oscillates around a mean. So technically there has never in the entire life of the planet been a 50 year stretch with no change. However, when that question is asked that is not what they mean, and we all know it.
It means, “are things out of the ordinary”, and a lot more than 1% know that things are NOT out of the ordinary.

Given the questions in the survey, I’m not surprised 1% checked it. Had they asked “Does the WMO come out with a new climate “normal” every decade for the previous 30 years,” and made it a separate question, that would have scored a lot higher.
Seems to be a rather ill designed survey. Perhaps 97% of surveys designed by climatologists are crap.

Chip Javert

Code Tech & Bob
While I strongly agree with the intent of your statements (should be a lot more “don’t know”s”), please consider the audience: the great American public.
That group has at least 2 problems:
(1) Their government has made it highly convenient for them to get a world-class poor education (esp. scientific education);
(2) Now days most people simply refuse to say “I don’t know” – everybody assumes you can get educated about anything in <10 minutes on the internet.
Anecdotal evidence: some absurdly large %age of US citizens cannot point to France on an unmarked map.

John Harmsworth

They assumed all the respondents were overcome by high CO2 levels and then modeled the answers and then made a few adjustments. Then they got the janitor to double check it.


@Chip Javert
Those types surveys are incredibly demeaning and useless in measuring the public’s general intelligence. If the US were a confederation like the EU (in which each state is independent of one another) and if some from France were asked to point to where Nevada is on an unmarked map. I’m pretty positive that not only would he get it wrong, but 97% of the rest of the world would also. *pun intended*
In other words, everything is a matter of context.

There should be a lot more “don’t know”s .

Dave in Canmore

Checking a box that says “nobody knows” instead of “I don’t know” makes a big difference as well. One gets way more responses than the other. Having to admit personal ignorance rather than make an assessment of the state of knowledge are two very different things. Tells you much about the opinions of those who constructed the survey. Or at least it tells me they are either biased on this issue or inept at constructing surveys.


Quantification of the contribution to climate change of CO2 is scientifically non-ascertainable since there is no known scientific means of empirically measuring it. Thus, “I don’t know” is the objectively correct answer to the question asked, and everyone should have checked that box. .

george e. smith

Well there isn’t even a global climate anyway. Climate is a local phenomenon.
Let me put it this way. …… IF ….. CLIMATE can be quantified by numbers and such so as to be able to describe it in some reproducible way, so ANY practitioner familiar with the process can distinguish one climate from another climate; then clearly climate is totally localized, and the notion of a global climate is just nonsense.
Definition : Global Climate ….. is a ground surface Temperature between -95 deg. C and + 65 deg. C accompanied by a relative humidity between 0.1 % and 99.9% and having total annual precipitation between 0.1 mm of rain equivalent and ten meters rain equivalent, and wind speeds from 1.0 mm per second, and 100 meters per second, accompanied by other conditions too numerous to include in this definition. Or alternatively; Climate is a local phenomenon.


“there isn’t even a global climate anyway”


I would like to ask what they mean by “climate change” – I certainly wouldn’t say it’s “global” – any change going on is regional. I would also like to know how many besides the two mentioned in the article, didn’t return their surveys.
I would also likewise say there is nothing out of the ordinary happening – it’s nothing that hasn’t happened before. There are no “new” climate conditions happening that don’t currently exist elsewhere on the planet.


First the corrupt establishment threaten us with prosecution and jail, then they make a survey asking us ur opinion. Who would actually trust them with our honest opinion? Even that 67% is a fake.


…or 67% believe there’s a status quo.


No survey means anything until you can demonstrate that it’s sample represents the population. The last paragraph in this post points out how unrepresentative it probably is.

Chip Javert

Since when did we start voting on science? Whatever the population thinks has exactly zero impact on the underlying physics (I agree it may have some political impact).
Survey results may be of interest if considering remedial education for these poor sheep, but most of the surveys are done for propaganda.

Evan Jones

Since when did we start voting on science?
Well, at least since Aristotle’s boys are said to have voted out a member who turned out to be an empiricist. And probably a lot longer ago than that.

Steve Fraser

The survey results, as published, are bogus. In survey work, to obtain valid percentages, the methodology must either randomize a sample or survey the entire group. In the former case, they would need to publish the statistical margin of error ( error bars )

george e. smith

Well you don’t need the error bars, because the results of any survey are always exact. You get an exact number of responses in each category.
What is greatly in need of error bars (huge ones) is YOUR extrapolation of those exact survey results to YOUR interpretation of what those exact results mean, with no real evidence to support YOUR belief.
That is more a measure of your ability to ask meaningful questions, than it is a measure of what other people besides YOU believe.

Mike Macray

Right on george e smith!
Polling is about questions not answers. e.g. When brother Dominic lit up during prayers, brother Guido told him that smoking during prayers was forbidden the Abbot had told him so. What did you ask him? asked Dominic. I asked could I smoke during prayers, and he said No! replied Guido. Ah! said Dominic taking a long drag, I asked him was it OK to pray while I smoked, and he said Yes!

Walt D.

There is also the problem that it fails to actually define what climate change is – it is a Humpty Dumpty definition. Global Warming can be defined as an increased in the average temperature as measured from a particular database.
Has climate change occurred in the Atacama desert recently?


..The Alarmist definition of ” Climate Change “.. changes daily, depending on their need for that day !!

“the alarmist definition of climate change” suppose they live in only of those many places where local observation allows “don’t like the weather? just hang around fifteen minutes it’ll change”

Scrolling down through the comments to see if anyone noted just that. The question should have been about AGW. But personally, I’d propose, in this case, that it’s really necessary to lead the question with, ‘understanding that the consensus is that probably all of the measurable GW during the first half of the 20th century was naturally occurring and approximately similar to the GW since 1950, do you think that GW over the course of the past 50 years has been caused . .’
Then, one should follow that up with, ‘understanding that there is really no empirical evidence, other than some warming, of any worsening long term trends in other forms of climate change (drought, cyclonic systems, floods, etc) during the past 50 years or so, as compared to the first half of the 20th Century, why are we continuing to talk about ACC, or CACC, as if it’s currently happening?’
Possible answers to choose from on that one, are:
– Gee, I don’t really know.
– Because we’re really stupid as a group.
– Because the media keeps it on the table.
– Oops

Lee Osburn

BUT, what would the survey be if “climate change” was replaced with “global warming”?


Can someone at WUWT contact Roy Spencer to tell him his site isn’t loading correctly? All I get is text as the images and stylesheets won’t load. He doesn’t have a contact page so I’m not sure if he knows there is an issue.

I’ll post on his FaceBook page. He’s been having trouble with the ISP for a while.
It looks like there’s a lot of missing CSS for formatting.

Roy Spencer

I’ve submitted a trouble ticket to the hosting company.


I’ve seen his site do that on occasion using firefox, but looked fine just a minute ago.

Richard G

I just went to the site and it loaded fine with I.E.

Bruce Cobb

Notice the dishonest way they pose the question, pitting “human activity” vs “natural events”. Human activity is a red herring, meant to obfuscate and confuse. The true question is about man’s CO2, and they know it, and the reason they are being dishonest about it is that they know that there is no “human fingerprint” to the warming of late last century. And what the Christ do they mean by “natural events”? That is simply a straw man, so again, they are lying.

Solomon Green

The survey does not bust the 97% consensus. The 30% who did not agree are not “Climate Scientists”.
If, when the survey is repeated in a few years time, more than 50% do not agree with the consensus they, too, will be excluded because they will be deprived of the title “Climate Scientist.”
No matter what qualifications a scientist possesses if he/she does not agree with the consensus they cannot be “Climate Scientists.” On the other hand, irrespective of their qualifications, mathematicians, economists and others qualify as “Climate Scientists” so long as they adhere to the cause.

Chip Javert

Perhaps in a few years “climate scientist” will be viewed as something like a voodoo witch doctor or even worse than a (gasp!) Wall Street banker…

John Harmsworth

That’s an interesting comparison. Both industries have thousands of people making millions of dollars pontificating on a process that is best described as a random walk.


Last time I looked, Mann had a PhD in geology, so that would square with your definition, Solomon. But the irony is amazing: You can be a “Climate Scientist” one week, and not be one the next–it all depends on your opinion.
Climate Science–the only non-verifiable profession I know.

Bruce Cobb

The bottom line is that the poll itself is bogus and dishonest, and geared in favor of the Warmunist “consensus”. That in itself would tend to discourage skeptics/climate realists from participating, in addition to the overall climate of fear of retaliation. Despite all of that, they still couldn’t manage to get the results they wanted.

FJ Shepherd

From my experience in dealing with those who adhere to the AGW hypothesis, the opinions of meteorologists on matters of climate are irrelevant. They prefer to listen to the opinions of bona fide climate scientists.


Ahh but now that the CAGWers talk of nothing but weather, the Meteorologists are back in!
just when I think I’m out….


And yet the AMS is listed as one of those ‘200 scientific organizations’ which agree AGW is happening. Would you agree then that we should strike them from the list?

FJ Shepherd

“And yet the AMS is listed as one of those ‘200 scientific organizations’ which agree AGW is happening. Would you agree then that we should strike them from the list?”
Apparently they should be so struck of the list. It is a good start … now about a survey for the members of the Academy of Sciences …”

Chip Javert

WoooooWheeeeee! You funny guy!
You mean “bona fide climate scientists” like Cook, Lewandowski and Al Gore? What am I missing here?

FJ Shepherd

“You mean ‘bona fide climate scientists’ like Cook, Lewandowski and Al Gore? What am I missing here?”
Not Al Gore – he is not a scientist of any sort. The CAGWers try to spread a great distance from that guy; they are not that stupid.


Chip, like myself, you need to go back and read what he said again- and this time, listen to it being said in Sarcasm 😛

Mumbles McGuirck

Well, I am a skeptic and I participated in this poll. You’ll see me in the 5% block in that bar chart above. The actual survey was conducted by an independent online survey service, so GMU personnel would not have access to personal information by questions answered. It was an anonymous survey to them, as well. The survey did give the AMS definition of “climate change” at the start and based questions on that definition. The AMS definition of “climate change” is basically that the climate changes. I’m surprised even 1% disagreed with that. Of course, when the results are touted, the definition is NOT given and people are left with the impression that “climate change” = “global warming”.
Still it is gratifying to see that I am not alone in my stand on climate, even if I am in the minority. I am used to that. About 87 AMS members have become more skeptical about AGW over the last 5 years. And for the majority of them it was due to the scientific literature or the arguments put forth by climate scientists. I feel I am in good company.

NW sage

This – the content of the definition – is a very important distinction. If the anthropological part is left out of the United Nations ‘official’ definition – and the respondents realize that fact (It must be made very clear) the answers should be very different. Many times the people surveyed will simply revert in their thinking to the definition they are in the habit of using and respond accordingly.
Human ego is limitless and few in authority can accept that there really might be some things that man CANNOT change – at least not yet. And they cannot accept that fact because that would mean there is an inherent limitation to their authority which they would have to admit.


Ah! indeed, the climate changes and glory be to that.
Carbon dioxide, is a life giving gas but water in its three forms is the mover and shaker and in its close relationship with that big golden orb in the sky.
The ant(hropoidea)’s scratch the surface and produce carbon dioxide and mother earth laughs and nothing is changed, the earth likes order in chaos and equilibrium is the outcome but it may take eons and anyway by that time – probably we’ll have ceased to exist………Gone and unnoticed, ants are, just ants. On, a time scale where even the great wall of China will be eventually ground down to micro grains of silica and mica glinting in a river bed, waiting to be carried down, a trench, fused remade as rocks and risen again greywacke, what an age it is.
We certainly affect the micro climate; we dry up inland seas, we dam rivers and change land use…. but after that, our input is infinitesimal, neglectful, negligible.


How many of these surveys were sent out? How many returned?
It is reasonable to suspect that many scientists who would not agree with AGW would not want their identity to be known by George Mason University.
Calling this a “bogus survey” is being way too kind.

Martin Hodgkins

A week is a long time in climate science.

“A week is a long time in climate science.”
Especially when they are trying to predict the weather.


…or quantify the climate.


Did they know John Holdren and the WH were only expressing John’s personal opinion about extreme cold caused by global warming prior to this polling question?

Walt D.

The response rate was not listed, so I have my doubts about that. I agree with other posters that doubts about just how anonymous the survey really was would lead to skewing the outcome towards people who endorsed climate change as human caused.

Let’s keep in mind the time frame of the “climate change” in the survey – 50 years (1967 – 2016). The temperature increase has likely been around 0.5 degrees Celsius. “Mostly anthropogenic” warming of 0.01 degree per year is the mainstream skeptical opinion.


This same survey was conducted a couple of years ago, wasn’t it? As the subject is so politically supercharged (even tho’ it’s supposed to be scientific in nature) which influences opinion, and as a very high percentage of AMS haven’t/aren’t engaged in serious examination and study of climate change issues, this survey doesn’t really tell us much. It’s a pulse of AMS members – that’s about it.
Of course the survey is presented as scientific gold in some circles …

Chip Javert

On the other hand, you probably don’t want to be a TV weather man who claims there is little/no AGW.
This is not necessarily a derogatory statement about AMS members, just a realistic statement of the (pick one or more: savage, career-ending, unethical, corrupt, immoral, scientifically-ignorant, brutal, nasty) forces arrayed against them.

@ Chip and John@EF, that is a good point, I wonder what happened to the French Weather announcer that got fired a few months ago, has anybody heard what happened to him? ( the 15 minutes of fame seems to have turned into 15 seconds these days)


Merely anecdotal.
One must ignore these surveys, they have nothing to do with anything. Even if 99% disagreed, it is still irrelevant, but there are those that want to see debate and arguing over this, because that is the only possible purpose that survey could serve, media rubber stamping apart

Evan Jones

The survey does not appear to include the crucial policy questions of how much ATGW is occurring or if AGW is “dangerous”.
In light of that, put me in category 2. I think over half is likely to be anthropogenic. But not much change. And not dangerous (in fact, highly beneficial, so far).


How many of them feel intimidated by such surveys?

This email survey was conducted in Jan 2016. The participation rate (per the report) was 53.3% (4092 AMS members). The results of the survey are interesting but hardly conclusive of anything. 46.7% of the AMS members chose not to participate. The number of AMS members who feared retribution if their opinion was shared is unknown.

D. J. Hawkins

That is a very good, not to say, exceptional participation rate. General marketing surveys IIRC, for instance, consider 10% to be a very good response.

Addressing an association of meteorologists, did they really use the weaselly euphemism ‘climate change’ to hide the words ‘global warming’? Was there any recipient that did not find this an insult to his intelligence?
/Mr Lynn


Maibach, the wrong horse.

BTW, the survey was not anonymous. The organizers of the survey knew precise identities of the surveyed individuals. And there is a tale telling sentence in the report:
It is important to note that 3,364 people (43.8% of our total sample) did not open any email associated with this survey.
Usually an email sender does not know whether the recipient has opened the email or not. The organizers of the survey either lied in their paper, or had actually employed some underhanded tracking technique. Modern email programs are pretty good at warning the users of such tracking attempts. In the current political climate, administering such “survey” seems as an act of intimidation.

Especially given 5 (five!) additional reminders that were sent to each target. In the second thought, it also looks like harassment.


The beatings will continue until morale has improved.

Evan Jones

“Thank you, sir! May I have another?”

Steve Fraser

Several things jump out at me…
No tabular data of actual counts, only graphs. Perhaps when the full paper comes out?
The way this was was issued, The only valid statistic in the whole thing is the % of those who responded.
If they are going to report invalid stats, then I want a chance, too. Here would be an invalid statistic: surveys were sent to 7677 ASM members. Of them, only 51% responded that they think climate change is happening…
On the subject of the survey, while it is not possible generally to determine if an e-mail has been opened, if the survey is linked via URL, then the act of accessing accessing the link can be counted, as can the elapsed time for taking the survey.
Looking at the grant abstract… This whole program is about MEDIA.


Shaping a narrative, sculpting its unreality. Not so much unveiling the statue within, as moulding the sickened clay.


Does it really matter what the percentage of the consensus is? Suppose those who believe what the consensus is based on suddenly disagree with and only 3% remain of the old consensus. The result is another 97% consensus but with an opposite view. But it is still a meaningless consensus. There is no place in science for consensus-based empowerment. You’ve lost the debate when your strongest point is a that yours is a consensus opinion. This has been proved again and again throughout history.

Roy Spencer

yeah, except 97% is still a powerful meme with the masses.


Great. Cheer a study that actually counters the meme in a substantive way ….


It takes a while after it is busted for it to be rubbed out Dr S. The Guardian have dropped the consensus page 😀
Also the mindless masses that just don’t believe CAGW because of similar reasons why the mindless masses do believe it, now know the 97% was propaganda.
Greatest advert for the use of the 97% was the head of the Sierra Club, when asked what the pause was he replied “An event in the 1940s”, when further asked about that he just started bleating “97%” in response to the following questions. Utterly embarrassing.
That rag is fast becoming useless, as far as I can see, only crack pots now use that as a defence


It is useful in these discussions to separate science from politics. The 97% has been (an may continue to be) powerful politically even if it never made any sense scientifically. It was great politics even if it were never true.


Illusively great, tremendously fragile. Nature rules narrative, iron-handedly.

I would have chosen “largely or entirely by natural events”, but I would have been tempted by “there has been no climate change over the last 50 years”.
The “no change” for 50 years option, to me, includes the fact that the climate has been recovering from the Little Ice Age and that except for a few minor swings about the small upward curve in temperature there has been nothing to write home about.


“And the unbelievers were very wroth and did rise up to smite the Golden Calf, and overturn the holy places, and did burn down its sacred groves, and did visit upon the high priests with great vehemence, and would not suffer them but did verily anoint them with rocks and did make of them for a burnt offering unto the Sun.”


Words mean things. There is no hypothesis of Climate Change. There is a hypothesis call anthropomorphic global warming. So the survey has no meaning.

no mention of CO2 specifically – maybe that was to evade the hot-button issue – but it leaves the conclusions up for interpretation

every person is entitled to an opinion of course but there is no empirical evidence that warming is related to fossil fuel emissions

Steve Fraser

For those interested, here is the abstract on the NSF grant web page.
interesting reading.

Anthony – I think your numbers are wrong.
So 43.6% could not be intimidated into answering the survey for fear of retribution.
I would strongly expect that most of these folk are overwhelmingly NOT in the climate alarmist camp.
I bet all of them.
Lets break this down.
Survey of 4092… 43.6% don’t answer because they are worried about being harassed, fired, demoted, or otherwise shunned because they don’t believe in CAGW. That’s 1784 non believers.
1/3 that answered are self-professed non-believers, or 1362 people.
That leaves just 946 CAGW believers, or about 23%.
Said another way… Only 23% of those sent an AMS survey believe in CAGW.

From the survey…

Our survey was administered via email between January 6 and January 31, 2016. After making an initial request to participate, we sent up to five additional requests/reminders to participate to those people who had not yet completed a survey. A total of 4,092 AMS members participated, with participants coming from the United States and internationally. The participation rate in the survey was 53.3%.

Respectfully, I think your numbers might be off. Or, maybe I’ve got it wrong.
I interpret this such that the 4092 represents the 53.3% that responded to the survey, and that a total of around 7677 were initially requested to participate (i.e. 3585 didn’t bother to respond). That interpretation seems to change your calculations above. If 1/3 of the respondents are non-believers (1364 people), then the other 2728 respondents are believers. This seems to mean 35.5% (2728/7677) are believers using your logic. Slightly higher number but same basic point.
One other consideration for you…
You use CAGW (C = “Catastrophic”) and I don’t see in this post where there is a link between the responses about the cause of climate change and whether it is catastrophic or not.


Ahh but by Cookian methods, those that express no opinion just vanish and are irrelevant and not representative at all of the field in which they work 😛

John in Oz

Boulder Skeptic gives us information that the identities of the participants were known:

five additional requests/reminders to participate to those people who had not yet completed a survey

otherwise how were they able to send reminders to the ones who had not participated?

Re: AMS Survey Consensus, 3/25/16
The bishops have taken the measure of the flock.
The survey asked about climate, but nothing about science qua science. How many, they should have asked, believe that science is about belief? How many believe that science is about consensus forming and estimating? Raise your hand if you believe science is about peer review and publication.
Conversely, how many think science is about facts? Or that facts are observations reduced to measurements and compared with standards? How often to you require your science to make valid predictions: (a) never, (b) sometimes, (c) always?
The survey reveals a 30% weaker faith than previously claimed for academic climatologists, riding on a unanimous undercurrent of science illiteracy, from the bishops on down.

Humans cannot change the climate in any predictable way no matter how hard we try. Natural variation drives the climate. The most human activity can do is to very slightly modulate at the edges the wave of natural forces, with the Sun being the engine along with orbital mechanics.


What climate change?


The climate changes? Who’d a thunk it? You mean before us? C’mon, Grampa, tell us another good one from the old days.

NW sage

Wellll son – When I had a dinosaur for a pet…


An entire survey on whether ‘human activity’ causes to any degree ‘global warming’ is meaningless to decide what to do about it.
What ‘human activities?’ Heat Island? Growing Population?
I can answer that and stlll believe fossil fuels and CO2 are not the alleged culprit.
But, alas, these 97% type surveys…or 67%….will misused to later suggest what human activities THEY were talking about.
Why don’t they just say human activities in the form of fossil fuel usage?


Stealthily come the fantasia and their phantoms.


No, human activities in creating mathematical artifacts and calling them data sets


Good questions!


Perhaps they should also include a survey of people who in the last ten years have dropped their AMS membership because of the leadership stance on global warming. I dropped mine a few years ago after hearing congressional testimony by Marshall Shepherd.


Quote: “Even given that 1/3 who don’t attribute man-made causes, personally, I think the numbers aren’t fully representative of what AMS members really think and that 1/3 number would actually be higher.”
The graph pictured does not state that 33.3% don’t attribute man-made causes. There are only (a max of) 19% (total of the last three columns) who suggest or imply that man has no part. Even the 4th column states “mostly by naturally occurring events” suggesting that man many have some influence.
We have to be careful not to read more into the chart than is actually shown.

John Silver

Only 1% dare to tell the truth. Pathetic.


That would be consistent with say North Korean surveys and Cuban.


At least North Koreans have good reason to tow the line!!

I remember a time when the opinion of meteorologists didn’t count, because they weren’t climatologists. How things have changed.


Just as weather now matters when for the past decade it was just weather.
It’s sad really, to this this is humanity, in 2015.
We are clearly capable of wiping ourselves out completely, mind you not via CO2. 😀

Justin G

Can someone refer us all to the story about Nucatelli and his friends, pasting each others’ facial photographs on Nazi Third Reich leadership photographs when they were burning down Russia and beyond?
I don’t know if there is actually a WUWT story on it but I saw some people talking about it.
A large round up story of the seriously evil-crazy people involved with the Green House Gas AGW movement would be an excellent thing. Certainly stuff for a book:
”The bizarre, criminal, and nefarious acts, statements and ways, of the 21st century’s first government employee driven chemistry scam.”

Crispin in Waterloo

Well according to these numbers fully 1/3 of all scientists have concluded (recently) that they were incorrect about blaming mankind for ‘climate change’ and/or ‘global warming’. I wonder what caused such a remarkable shift in opinion? I think such a huge change in such a short time is unprecedented. Whatever the cause is, the problems with the quality of climate science’s conclusions about ‘causation’ must be worse than we thought.

I love it that despite how many ways this survey could have been manipulated, and most likely was, to bias the outcome, it could not get anywhere near a consensus! That has to be extremely frustrating, puzzling, annoying to the AGW folks.
Seems like if we engaged in the same oily, shady, lying tactics “some” people used, we could holler: “The percentage of skeptical scientists has grown from 3 percent (according to misrepresentations of Cook etc all) to 33 percent in just 3 years!!!”
Or something like that. 😊


“…the climate change that has occurred…”
That seems to me to be the psychological “out” that would allow those who don’t believe in the CAGW hypothesis to answer ‘yes’ to something that would keep them in relatively good stead with the consensus forgers. It’s vague enough to allow someone to think in terms of localized “climate changes” while they answered the survey question.
The idea that those asking the question didn’t realize they were asking a question that had such an “easy out” is ludicrous to me.