American Meteorological Survey on Global Warming

[jack97]

Here's a 2013 survey conducted on the American Meteorological Society members. Interesting that of the respondents, 52% percent believe global warming is caused by man.

Saw it on Forbes today, but the results were available last week, not surprise it hasn't made it to more media outlets.

Here's the manuscript version, it has detail of the respondents and the spreadsheet at the. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

 

[Cannonball]

Thanks for posting that. It's a pretty interesting read, although not that surprising in terms of findings I guess. Their discussion includes a bunch of things I feel like we already knew, including:

• Scientists with greater expertise in climate science believe that there is a human-caused component of climate change (as opposed to scientists with less expertise).
• "Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change"
• "These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change"

Their discussions about the political ideology impacts are very revealing and informative. They show that a liberal political ideology is correlated with a belief that climate change is largely human-caused. They then attribute political ideology as a causative affect on certain scientific beliefs and understanding. However, one thing I wish they had explored a little bit deeper is whether scientific knowledge and expertise influences ones political ideology. It's plausible that many scientist hold liberal beliefs because they are knowledgeable experts, instead of the other way around.

 

[jack97]

Thanks for posting that. It's a pretty interesting read, although not that surprising in terms of findings I guess. Their discussion includes a bunch of things I feel like we already knew, including:

• Scientists with greater expertise in climate science believe that there is a human-caused component of climate change (as opposed to scientists with less expertise).
• "Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change"
• "These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change"

Their discussions about the political ideology impacts are very revealing and informative. They show that a liberal political ideology is correlated with a belief that climate change is largely human-caused. They then attribute political ideology as a causative affect on certain scientific beliefs and understanding. However, one thing I wish they had explored a little bit deeper is whether scientific knowledge and expertise influences ones political ideology. It's plausible that many scientist hold liberal beliefs because they are knowledgeable experts, instead of the other way around.

Normally a large research project is politically motivated. More so, I read this past year, 2-3 billions dollars was granted to research university in the US on climate change. IMO, the participants have an interest in the pursuit of this since they feed off each other. If the National Research Foundation believes that climate change is caused by man then they will grant funds to scientist that will support this belief. That in itself is the irony, science has not been conducted in this manner.... well in the US. It has been conducted that way in the USSR with Lysenko.


btw, as the paper mentioned, the survey itself was motivated by dissent among members. Here's Tim Kelley's twitter feeds on his opinion.

https://twitter.com/SurfSkiWxMan/statuses/348042171619872768

https://twitter.com/SurfSkiWxMan/statuses/348041474803376128

 

[jack97]

hmmm.... just thinking this thru for the non science geeks. The irony that I speak of is related to one of the quotes from TK

"Science has on open mind. We were trained that way our entire life, we're science geeks since birth, 50+ years. Capice? doubtful"


It may turn out the true liberals minds are the ones with open minds and do not spit out bullet points from a position paper or a political platform. In science, observations should determine the causation not vice versa.

IMO, this climate issue has so much irony and drama, its better than watching TV drama.

 

[fbrissette]

Here's a 2013 survey conducted on the American Meteorological Society members. Interesting that of the respondents, 52% percent believe global warming is caused by man.

This is not a totally fair assessment of this interesting paper.

Scientific facts are NOT determined by opinion polls.

 

[jack97]

This is not a totally fair assessment of this interesting paper.

Scientific facts are determined by opinion polls.

science are facts based on observations. The survey counters the 97% number the IPCC has been using.

 

[fbrissette]

science are facts based on observations.

Oops... Forgot the'not' in my post above....

Polling results depends on who you are polling obviously. If you poll climate scientists actually involved in scientific research, you get a number closer to the IPCC quoted number above.

 

[jack97]

Polling results depends on who you are polling obviously. If you poll climate scientists actually involved in scientific research, you get a number closer to the IPCC quoted number above.

Hence the purpose of the survey, the findings so far by climate scientist have not thoroughly convince meteorologist, scientist who study or observe the atmosphere. Perhaps the climate scientist and the government officials who control funding are drinking the same kool aid. It should alarm all regardless of any political persuasion that something is wrong.

 

[fbrissette]

Hence the purpose of the survey, the findings so far by climate scientist have not thoroughly convince meteorologist, scientist who study or observe the atmosphere. Perhaps the climate scientist and the government officials who control funding are drinking the same kool aid. It should alarm all regardless of any political persuasion that something is wrong.

Here are the numbers, overall, 62% of all responders say global warming is mostly or partly due to humans. (only 11% say there is no global warming, the other don't know the cause or say it's a natural cause). If you take climate scientists that do most of their research in 'climate science', this goes to 88% (with 98% believing in global warming). Clearly, the people who know the most think that climate change is mostly due to human effects.

On this topic, the opinion of meteorologists is hardly more relevant than that of geologists or hydrologists.

There are really only two possible ways of looking at this:

1- the scientists who actually do real climate research are indeed the better experts on the topic, they overwhelmingly agree on the role of humans, and may be we should trust them.
2- the same scientists are part of a global conspiracy to get funding, and we should trust everyone else but them.

What I find alarming is the distrust of scientists in this case. If you have cancer, trust your oncologist, if your home foundation develops cracks trust the civil engineer, if you need the best possible estimate of rainfall probability for tomorrow, indeed trust your meteorologist, but if the climate warms up, do NOT trust the climate scientists ??? You either believe in science or you don't.

I don't care about the meteorologists' opinion on climate change anymore than I care about the opinion of climatologists on tomorrow's weather.

 

[jack97]

What I find alarming is the distrust of scientists in this case. If you have cancer, trust your oncologist, if your home foundation develops cracks trust the civil engineer, if you need the best possible estimate of rainfall probability for tomorrow, indeed trust your meteorologist, but if the climate warms up, do NOT trust the climate scientists ??? You either believe in science or you don't.

if i had cancer or if my foundation was cracked, i would get a second opinion; from a doctor not in the same practice as the first or from a civil engineer not from the same company as the first.

btw..... its not a matter of trusting science or not, that's is close minded. science is about growth and transformation (sorry walt white but I can't put decay in this one) time will tell who is right or wrong. Scientist have accepted fundamental principles that they are not experts in mainly b/c the principles have been tested rigorously through out time and have still held up. However, present climate scientist hypothesis about agw has not convince everyone in the scientific community, imo b/c the findings are not overwhelming.

 

[jack97]

...... It's plausible that many scientist hold liberal beliefs because they are knowledgeable experts, instead of the other way around.

Took me a while to dig this out... some distinguish members; nobel prize laureates and fellows from the American Physical Society (Physics) and the American Chemical Society have resigned their membership due to their society's position papers, akin to what happened in the AMS. You may know this or not, Physicist, Chemist and Meteorologist do study the atmosphere but they study it under the context of finding truth not under the guise of it. Hence the dissent among the ranks.


Here's the stories on the noted physicists resignation,

http://www.ibtimes.com/nobel-laurea...hysics-group-over-stand-global-warming-313636

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...ter-a-Martin-Luther-moment-in-science-history


No stories of the chemist resignation but letters to the editor when they publish their position paper.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i30/Climate-Change-Controversy.html



IMO, this type of dogma has gone further than when religious zealots tried to put creationism in place of or equal to evolution.

 

[BenedictGomez]

IMO, the participants have an interest in the pursuit of this since they feed off each other. If the National Research Foundation believes that climate change is caused by man then they will grant funds to scientist that will support this belief. That in itself is the irony

BINGO.

Thousands of people would lose their high-paying jobs were the man-made Global Warming hypothesis deemed a bust. Not only that, but take a guess as to what the government responsiveness will be if you apply for a grant to investigate an alternate theory. SPOILER ALERT: It wont end well.

I used to believe in AGW years ago, until I started following the money and it led me to a putrid stench.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The other thing not being considered in this AMS study is what in data analysis is called, "survivor bias".

Many quit the AMS because of their belief that there was an almost religious fervor towards Global Warming and that their opinions weren't being considered, or worse, even allowed to be professed.

Essentially that they were being suppressed and steamrolled, and that they didnt wish to be a part of it anymore. So many people who WOULD have voted against the validity of man-created Global Warming are no longer able to vote against it, and yet they could only manage a non-impressive 52% = TELLING.

 

[fbrissette]

BINGO.

Thousands of people would lose their high-paying jobs were the man-made Global Warming hypothesis deemed a bust. Not only that, but take a guess as to what the government responsiveness will be if you apply for a grant to investigate an alternate theory. SPOILER ALERT: It wont end well.

I used to believe in AGW years ago, until I started following the money and it led me to a putrid stench.

That's where you got it wrong. If you could do legitimate science that shows global warming is not happening, there would be much easier ways to get money than to go through the NSF (Jack, it's the NSF not the NRF).

 

[fbrissette]

The other thing not being considered in this AMS study is what in data analysis is called, "survivor bias".

Many quit the AMS because of their belief that there was an almost religious fervor towards Global Warming and that their opinions weren't being considered, or worse, even allowed to be professed.

Essentially that they were being suppressed and steamrolled, and that they didnt wish to be a part of it anymore. So many people who WOULD have voted against the validity of man-created Global Warming are no longer able to vote against it, and yet they could only manage a non-impressive 52% = TELLING.

This is an incredible display of bad faith. The ONLY thing that you can get out of this paper is that the better the expertise on climate science, the more likely you are to think that global warming has a man-made component.

This is not a scientific survey with carefully chosen sub-samples of a base group. This was sent out to ALL members (26% response rate) so there are potential biases much much larger than 'survivor bias'.

You can try to misrepresent the survey by using the 52% but let me spin it the other way - only 4% (yes 4%) of all surveyed do not believe that global warming is happening.

 

[jack97]

That's where you got it wrong. If you could do legitimate science that shows global warming is not happening, there would be much easier ways to get money than to go through the NSF (Jack, it's the NSF not the NRF).

I think all gov including US have acknowledge that global warming is happening wrt the industrial age. The question is whether its man made or not. That is where the hysteria starts and where the money cycle starts.

 

[Cannonball]

I think all gov including US have acknowledge that global warming is happening wrt the industrial age. The question is whether its man made or not. That is where the hysteria starts and where the money cycle starts.

Yes, you're right on the money. All governments have acknowledged it, based on the overwhelming majority of expert science. And that overwhelming majority of expert scientists have identified that there is a human induced component. And that makes some people hysterical.

That's really a shame because hysteria is an unproductive use of energy. That energy would be better placed towards solutions and adaptations.

 

[fbrissette]

I think all gov including US have acknowledge that global warming is happening wrt the industrial age. The question is whether its man made or not. That is where the hysteria starts and where the money cycle starts.

Do you realize those are the exacts same arguments guys like you were using 15 years ago about whether or not climate change was real ?

Care to enlighten us about where you get your information about this hysteria and money cycle scheme ?

The question about whether or not there is a man-made component is pretty much settled. Go read the science and tell us where it is wrong instead of crying wolf about pseudo conspiracies. You may find that hysteria is not where you think it is.

 

[fbrissette]

Took me a while to dig this out... some distinguish members; nobel prize laureates and fellows from the American Physical Society (Physics) and the American Chemical Society have resigned their membership due to their society's position papers, akin to what happened in the AMS. You may know this or not, Physicist, Chemist and Meteorologist do study the atmosphere but they study it under the context of finding truth not under the guise of it. Hence the dissent among the ranks.


Here's the stories on the noted physicists resignation,

http://www.ibtimes.com/nobel-laurea...hysics-group-over-stand-global-warming-313636

Concerning Ivar Giaever, poster boy for deniers, read this and learn why this guy has been laughed at. And it ain't because of a conspiracy.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

 

[jack97]

Concerning Ivar Giaever, poster boy for deniers, read this and learn why this guy has been laughed at. And it ain't because of a conspiracy.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

Ivar Giaever admits to not studying the atmosphere, he does not believe the position paper should have been written under the context and the methods that have been used. People who laugh at him are closed minded given his past contribution.

IMO, in terms of new ideas, Salby, a respected scientist who got the run around from the NSF, MU and most likely the regional awg zealots. He surmise that temp is driving the co2, that in itself needs to be scrutinize but the satellite observations of co2 do not match that of man made emission. Guy used to be a IPCC reviewer and written textbooks on atmospheric physics. Has another ytube tape in hamberg where he goes into more numerical techniques, it not for the faint of heart who loves this stuff, meaning the scientific method.


And yes I have read the debate on the opposing web sites... that's what science is about, allowance to hear and analyze opposing views. That is the essence of why Giaever resigned.