Skip to content

Global Warming Consensus Crumbling

December 6, 2013

By Paul Homewood




The recent global warming survey run by the American Meteorological Society has already attracted much attention. The story has been well covered, for instance here and here.

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”?


Global time series


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.

About these ads
19 Comments leave one →
  1. December 6, 2013 2:10 pm

    Reblogged this on Quixotes Last Stand.

  2. philjourdan permalink
    December 6, 2013 2:36 pm

    Any species residing in an environment, affects the environment (that is why eco nutters are so rabid about species extinction). As climate is part of an environment, yes man has some effect on it. So the only question then becomes – how much. And that is the part that is tripping up the alarmists.

    The “catastrophic” part is merely their way of trotting out a boogey man to increase their funding. If they cannot prove the extent of the influence, they cannot attribute any catastrophe to anything other than natural causes.

  3. Karl Hallowell permalink
    December 6, 2013 6:54 pm

    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”

    It’s not a cop out at all. It just means that you consider natural and man-made effects to be close in effect, perhaps close enough that you don’t know which one is larger. It doesn’t mean that you don’t know at all.

    • December 6, 2013 8:38 pm

      So do you believe that only half of the recent warming is half made?

      That certainly is not the IPCC position.

      The reality is that most people accept AGW has had some sort of effect, and many realise that there has been a natural from the LIA. Are you really telling me that some AMS members have weighed up the evidence and decided 50/50?

      • David Shipley permalink
        December 7, 2013 2:36 pm

        Surely with the lack of convincing evidence either way, everyone’s position on natural v anthropogenic is a guess, with some perhaps better supported by data than others. I have far less problem with someone having a best guess of 50/50 than I do with those who are categoric either way. None of these guesses is particularly scientific, but it is a good start to know you don’t know. This is where the IPCC is so preposterous.

  4. mitigatedsceptic permalink
    December 6, 2013 8:41 pm

    How should we characterise ‘climatologists’ and ‘meteorologists’?
    The former – post-normal scientists – who see science as a vehicle for fulfilling community and personal ambitions and who are prepared to do almost anything to provide ‘evidence’ to support their Agenda 21 ambitions. ‘Quality’ not ‘truth’ where ‘quality ‘means power’ over resources to create and perpetuate autopoietic self-serving institutions that even they cannot control. Such institutions serve no human purpose. Small wonder at the demand by the FRSs who met Ld Lawson recently to hide behind the Chatham House Rule and who refused to discuss the political and economic effects of governments succumbing to their dogmas.
    The latter – normal empirical scientists who seek truth by observation and who do not extend their hypotheses beyond what is implied by that. Normal science in many fields of research is being deprived of resources because of politicians and businesses yielding to the predatory demands of climatologists.
    I believe that climatology should be construed as a political movement quite divorced from ‘science’.
    Is it not time for empirical science to stand up to the model makers and assert that, as IPCC asserted in its first report, that climate is too large, complex and chaotic to be modelled? It is simply impossible to establish all the initial conditions that might have significance.

  5. Brian H permalink
    December 6, 2013 9:46 pm

    Two years of warming, co-incidental (purely by accident) with a Great El Nino, for a little while gave the impression that there was some deviation from the tilted sine wave warming since the LIA. That impression has been and is being falsified by “The Pause”.

    There is no other evidence for AGW. Far from being the default or Null Hypothesis, it is a speculation used as the basis of multiple expensive computer “projections”, individually and collectively showing “no skill”.

  6. December 9, 2013 8:42 pm

    Reblogged this on Atlas Monitor.

  7. Michael martin-Smith permalink
    December 10, 2013 12:21 am

    The past two winters in Europe are already killing people by hypothermia in the tens of thousands- directly due to Green Taxes and excessive Energy costs to consumers. I have no idea how many people have been or will be killed by “global warming”, whether caused by humans or even in reality manifested by cold winters.
    But we know beyond doubt that the moves advocated to combat GW will kill millions within 20 years if continued.
    Green taxes and exorbitant and artificially raised energy prices to consumers are a classic case of the Cure being worse than the Disease- and even more reprehensible if the alarm is false.
    We can surely count on Green Politicians and profiteering Utilities to bring us an Ice Age, on the principle of perverse results of social /climatic engineering by bureaucrats and hungry tax collectors.
    The Greens in this respect are the mirror image of the Reds, as exemplified by Mao Zedong’s homicidal Great Leap Forward and its artificial famine
    Green =Red = Black- different coloured shirts, same homicidal anti-human ideology

  8. December 10, 2013 8:00 am

    Reblogged this on CACA.

  9. Doubting Thomas permalink
    December 10, 2013 5:04 pm

    The fact that 9 out of ten that publish on the subject of climate believe humans affect the climate is also utterly unsurprising.

    That said, the fact that 70% of scientists say that humans affect the climate is utterly unsurprising.

    So taking this at face value, 90% of the papers support manmade climate change, but only 70% of the scientisis think humans affect climate? (Even Smith seemed to have no problem with the 70% figure). That tells me that one of two things is going on:

    a) some of the scientists do no believe their own research.
    b) positive manmade climate change research is more likely to get published than negative research

    Answer a) would imply that scientists manipulate their research when they have to put their name to it, but will state their true feelings in an anonymous poll. This could be due to several factors incuding pleasing the grantor (i.e. the government), fear of reprisal, reputation, extra scrutiny (we know negative results will be looked at far more closely than positive results), etc.

    Answer b) could be the result of peer review bias or that proponents publish more on average than non-proponents (if so, why?),

    The 20 point difference might seem to be trivial, but I think the fact that these two numbers
    (90% vs. 70%) are not the same is telling nonetheless. It implies that on an individual level there is some amount of deceit occuring. Or on a collective level there is a filtering of publications so that positive results are more likely to be published than negative results.

  10. April 3, 2014 10:40 pm

    The good professor is right.

    The war on climate is the result of a 1945 plan to take totalitarian control of humanity to save planet Earth from nuclear annihilation.

    To return the spotlight to sixty-eight years (2014 – 1946 = 68 yrs) of deceit disguised as “settled science,” nine (9) pages of precise experimental data [1] were published three months ago to show, beyond doubt:

    1. Neutrons repel neutrons
    2. Stars make and discard hydrogen
    3. The Sun itself
    _ a.) Made our elements
    _ b.) Birthed the Solar System 5 Ga ago
    _ c.) Sustained life’s origin and evolution on Earth after 3.5 Ga ago
    _ d.) Still controls every atom, life and world in the solar system today.

    1. “A Journey to the core of the Sun,” – Chapter 2: Acceptance of Reality

    The next chapter – Chapter 3 (in progress): The Forbidden Forces of Einstein, Planck and Aston – will show why the integrity of constitutional governments and science collapsed together after WWII, just as George Orwell predicted in the book he started writing in 1946:

    “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”


  1. AGW is a way to scare people into submission. Simple! | Mothers Against Wind Turbines
  2. Global Warming Consensus Crumbling | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
  3. The Global Warming “Consensus” | Transterrestrial Musings
  4. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
  5. Article contains comments from Michael Smith….this man, is BRILLIANT! A must-read! | Mothers Against Wind Turbines
  6. Global Warming Consensus Crumbling | EPA Abuse
  7. December – Articles and blogs. | shelliecorreia

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: