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.

  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. jbuc912 permalink
    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.”

  11. April 27, 2014 8:27 pm


    People in the USA, are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.

    In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

    In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

    When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

    After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:

    The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.

    “The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

    The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”

    Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:

    Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

    At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

    CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

    CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

    If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

    The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.

    If the Earth’s temperature graph is not shown above, you can see this temperature graph at the link:


  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

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: