Global Warming Consensus Crumbling
By Paul Homewood
There have been claims and counterclaims about just what the survey shows.
So, in this post, I really just want to add a few thoughts of my own as discussion points.
First, let’s take another look at the table of results that the survey published.
The AMS seem to be upset by the fact that the “52%” result has been bandied around, and that this somehow has distorted the survey’s real findings. I am sure that is jolly inconvenient for them, but it is, of course, exactly what the results of the survey show.
Let’s also consider these points:
- The official IPCC position is that “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”, and that “The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C [ for the period 1951-2010]
In other words, just about all of the warming has been man made, not 51%, not 71% and not even 91%.
- Even amongst climatologists in the AMS, only 73% say “mostly human”, well short of the fraudulent “97%” claims we often hear of. And how many of these would agree with the IPCC position that virtually all warming is man made?
- Amongst the meteorologists, rather than the climatologists, only 49% agree with “mostly human”.
- The category “Equally human and natural” is actually just a meaningless cop out. Nobody could seriously be so precise with the allocation of cause. It is really just another way of saying “Don’t know”
- Level of Harm/Benefit – one of the questions asked in the survey was :
“Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?”
Response options were: very harmful, somewhat harmful, the harms and benefits will be more or less equal, somewhat beneficial, very beneficial, and don’t know.
Nowhere in the paper are the results of this question revealed. (There is no supplementary information available yet, so it may be included there).
This question, of course, is highly relevant, as again it is central to the IPCC viewpoint, that global warming will be extremely damaging. One therefore wonders why the results of this question have not been published. Could it be that many less than the already low 52% agreed with the IPCC view?
Let’s after all consider the facts. In the last 80 years, global temperatures have increased by about half a degree. IPCC models, that forecast much bigger increases, remain just that, models, which continue to be confounded by the 17-year temperature standstill.
Bearing all that in mind, how many of the “52%” would still agree that “warming in the next 100 years will be very harmful”?
One final point.
On the Climate Science Watch website, which claims the survey has been distorted by sceptics, there is this comment from Michael Smith,
I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. To the best of my memory I never had a chance to respond to this poll of the AMS membership.
That said, the fact that 70% of scientists say that humans affect the climate is utterly unsurprising. That has been known scientifically since Changnon’s METROMEX study in the early 70′s. The fact that 9 out of ten that publish on the subject of climate believe humans affect the climate is also utterly unsurprising.
For me, the money question was #6, "How worried are you about global warming?" Only 30% answered "very worried." This would make 70% of the respondents "deniers" since that perjorative term seems to be applied to anyone who does not accept the "IPCC consensus" of catastrophic global warming. A statistically similar number (28%) is not worried or "not very worried" about global warming.
So, you can spin the results any way you want but this survey of a small number of AMS members doesn’t reveal any great concern about global warming.
This rather eloquently says it all.