posted January 14, 2014 02:13 PM            

A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.

The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.

“Historical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,” Kullman found. “Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.”

Kullman also wrote that “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present.” The “Holocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. This warm period was followed by a gradual cooling period.”

According to Kullman, the temperature spikes were during the Roman and Medieval warming periods “were succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age.”

For many years now, there was an alleged scientific consensus that the Earth was warming due to humans releasing greenhouse gases into the air — primarily through burning fossil fuels. However, temperatures stopped rising after 1998, leaving scientists scrambling to find an explanation to the hiatus in warming.

Increasingly, scientists are looking away from human causes and looking at solar activity and natural climate variability for explanations of why the planet warms and cools.

“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”

The Kullman study points to mounting evidence that climate is largely out of human control, as humans were not burning large amounts fossil fuels during Roman and Medieval times.

Some scientists have pointed to solar activity as the predictor of where global temperatures are headed. Researchers have pointed to falling sunspot activity as evidence that the planet will cool off in the coming decades.

“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,” the BBC reports. “Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”

Others have looked to natural climate systems for explanations for answers to the 15-year pause in global warming.

A study by Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, Huntsville found that about half the warming that occurred since the 1970s can be attributed to El Niño weather events, which had a warming effect on the planet.

posted January 14, 2014 02:43 PM            

quote:

---

The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today.

---

Where are the Scandes mountains? All around the world? Nope. Scandinavia.

The last time someone attempted to use Leif's work as prove that manmade global warming is wrong, 2008, he said, "I find it quite strange how an old tree can be used in the climate change controversy." http://www.desmogblog.com/a-short-sweet-rebuttal-to-newsbusters-swedish-tree-nonsense

posted January 14, 2014 07:39 PM            

quote:

---

A line that you forgot recently when you lambasted me for using it, and you then attempted to refute your own prior logic.

---

I did no such thing. That's how you interpreted it (conveniently), but my point was the consequence to localized areas.

quote:

---

I don't think you know what you believe.

---

posted January 15, 2014 08:00 PM            

First of all, if we are going to talk about global warming, we better look at the whole globe and not focus on just one region — in this case North America — no matter how much the media are constantly turned in that direction. For, in fact, while that region was indeed freezing all the way down to Florida, Australia was experiencing a heat wave.

It was not as extended as last year’s city-scorching and forest-decimating heat wave, but it still set new temperature highs in 34 locations, in some cases by several degrees. And that was not just a pike: 2013 was the hottest-ever year in the Australian continent.

Cold bite

More stunningly, and while most of North America was experiencing the cold bite of the “polar vortex”, Arctic regions in Alaska, Scandinavia and other northern European places enjoyed above-normal temperatures for days. In fact, this “Arctic Paradox” or “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” phenomenon had already been predicted by climate scientists in cases when the jet stream gets abnormally warmed and inverts the winds and the heat between the Equator and the polar regions.

Furthermore, even the “record lows” that had been reported in the US were new records only in some specific locations; elsewhere and overall, much lower temperatures had been experienced before.

In fact, weather specialists are predicting that by the end of this month, averages across North America will be above the 20th century’s normal levels.

So the first lesson we learn from this “deep freeze” is not to focus on a few days or on one specific region, no matter how spectacular the stories, images or numbers from there may be. One must take a larger and longer view — both geographically and historically.

Climate change

This past November, climatologists tell us, was warmer than average for the 37th year in a row. In Russia, it was the warmest November since 1891, when temperatures started being recorded. Siberia, a “deep freeze” icon if there is one anywhere, had temperatures higher than average by almost 8 degrees Celsius! (You remember that a Celsius degree contains more than one Fahrenheit degree, right?)

More widely, winters have been steadily warming for the past 40 years. Even the famously cold American states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, North and South Dakota and Vermont have seen temperature increases of almost three degrees, according to a Climate Central analysis. (Local weather events as the result of global warming, just as I said. [No. It's not crazy whatsoever. ])

The second important point that must be made and kept in mind in this regard is that “global warming” in fact means two things: A gradual and slow increase in the world-averaged temperature; and a climate change, whereby weather patterns and phenomena become abnormal, more extreme and “crazy”.

In other words, if we witness unusual weather occurrences, such as snowstorms in the Arabian Peninsula, sweltering heat waves in Europe, extreme floods in totally unexpected places and times, then we should be reminded of “climate change” and should get more convinced of “global warming” than the opposite. (I'm apparently not the only one conveying such an idea.)

Dangerous consequences

Scientists have worked hard to try to extricate the phenomenon of global warming, with its natural and artificial (human-induced) causes as well as its varied and dangerous consequences. However, it seems that they have not done nearly as well to explain it to the public — and to the media.

If the public — and officials — keep hearing the refrain that “there seems to be no global warming”, then no steps will be taken to at least slow down the phenomenon and we will not only experience more such episodes, but our children will inherit a very harsh planet.

Nidhal Guessoum is a professor and associate dean at the American University of Sharjah. http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/do-not-miss-the-woods-for-the-trees-1.1277945

Do not miss the woods for the trees.

___________________________

For a science-based counterpoint to this most recent misinformation, I asked Anji Seth, associate professor in UConn’s Geography Department, climatologist, and member of the University’s Environmental Policy Advisory Council, to weigh in. Anji is the recipient of a National Science Foundation CAREER Award to study Climate Change in the Northeast. Her research uses numerical climate models and observations to understand regional processes involved in climate variability. She is the author of this post about the conversation we need to have in order to focus the nation on climate impact, mitigation, and adaptation.

The Conversation We Need to Have on Global Warming
by Anji Seth, Department of Geography

We all know the earth’s climate is changing. The effects are inescapable no matter where we live. Here in New England, some changes are subtle (more humidity, consistently warmer nights), dramatic (more intense rainfall events), confusing (bigger snowfall events), and dangerous (more powerful hurricanes). The science tells us these are expected in a warming world, and indeed, we see them.

...

Still we hear in the media reports that global warming has stopped for the last 15 years; that increases in polar ice this year run contrary to the theory; and that an extreme cold snap puts a nail in its coffin.

Do these observations blow a hole into the theory of global warming? Not at all. Here’s why:

• First, the scientific evidence that supports greenhouse warming is vast, and has been building for more than 170 years. The climate system is noisy, and earth’s temperature will vary around the long-term trend. During any given 10-15 year period, the warming of the atmosphere may accelerate or decelerate but, in the longer term, temperatures are increasing and will continue to do so. You would not choose 15 data points when you had 170 to characterize a trend. A subset of years without a significant trend do not change the basic physics – that excess heat is held in the climate system by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
  
• Second, in the past decade or so, more of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gasses appears to be going into the deep oceans, which is why globally averaged warming has slowed. Note that over land, temperature increases have continued at a clip and global average temperatures remain at a record high, with the last 10 years qualifying as the warmest decade in the historical record. (The polar vortex is said to have been the result of an unusually warm Pacific ocean)
  
• Third, Arctic sea ice continues to be substantially below the long-term average in both areal extent and thickness. This past year, the Arctic sea ice was 6th lowest and more than a million square kilometers below the average area from the period 1981 to 2000. This past year’s ice area is certainly higher than 2012’s – but only because sea ice in 2012 was the lowest ever on record. In this case again, a comparison between two years does not tell the whole story. Climate is the story told over many decades.
  

There's nothing crazy about at least trying to understand the science.

quote:

---

And no warming for 15 years

---

No warming of surface temperatures, but definite warming of ocean temperatures as mentioned above.
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=023001AFV7YA

So why are we still debating a "consensus" among scientists?
As Scientific American points out, a "consensus does not imply truth" necessarily, but it’s "odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming." And the fact that this consensus among scientists is growing means the evidence is becoming even more irrefutable. A recent study published in the Journal of Climate found with 95% confidence that global warming is man-made. Another scientific paper found minimal impact from the sun on current global warming, agreeing with other estimates that the sun’s effect on rising temperatures is less than 10% that of humans’ effect. So while a consensus alone doesn’t make fact, the idea that it’s growing and the evidence is becoming more and more concrete puts global warming deniers in recoil. http://www.policymic.com/articles/78893/a-study-asked-how-many-scientists-don-t-believe-in-global-warming-here-are-the-results

I could probably keep doing this indefinitely, but I know the truth is that there is a lot of articles that support "global warming" and there are a lot of articles that deny manmade global warming. If we're going by volume, the scientific consensus probably wins, but there seems to be enough denier stuff out there to lull people into a false sense of security that there's some meat to their opinion.

There plain isn't. If you look at the subject with an open mind, the evidence for global warming or manmade global warming is in another realm in comparison to the detracting information. In the pro side is evidence after evidence taking place in the most recent times. In the 'against' camp, there's mostly historical denial by people that never studied it. I still think the Koch-brother's-funded Dr. Muller is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence out there. He was a knee-jerk skeptic like any of you, so he endeavored to investigate if the science was right, and he found that it was. He didn't find falsification or terrible sloppiness. Just the same data everyone else finds.

There's no way for a person to appear to be reasonable while espousing a view antithetical to the science. (<-My big beef) You can be like Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry (is it?), and promote a new theory that might add another piece to the puzzle, but almost no scientist is taking the intellectually unreasonable route of boldly claiming they know better than the sum total of the science from the whole rest of the planet. Nor is anyone proving a new and different explanation, presumably because they're not finding one.

posted January 15, 2014 10:39 PM            

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

posted January 16, 2014 11:51 AM            

quote:

---

Are these the same who have been wrong every time in the past?

---

They haven't been wrong every time in the past. That's something you tell yourself in order to defend your belief. It's a very clumsy justification.

quote:

---

Winters have been warmer? Where? In regional areas?

---

Yes, in regional areas, and the areas specified in the articles in particular.

quote:

---

You reference Australia (a regional area) for a record high and in the same breath brush off record lows. Who is being irrational?

---

You are. Still.

quote:

---

What will it take for the alarmists to turn to the other side?

---

That's not the question. The problem is on your end. It's you that can't imagine the other side is correct. Not the other way around.

quote:

---

High temps or low temps, it is out of human hands.

---

That may be true. Not because you say so, but rather because the damage may already be done. You know, when someone slams on their brakes in front of you, you're not powerless to prevent an accident.

quote:

---

We can't change it.

---

You have no way of proving this statement, and I doubt you ever will.

quote:

---

All we can do is watch it happen.

---

Once again, a possibility. Not the only possibility.

quote:

---

Not arguing the science right now but if you think the deniers'scientists don't depend on their paychecks you are fooling yourself.

---

Everyone depends upon their paychecks presumably. Denier's scientists would be your guys. Their backers are Big Oil.

quote:

---

Science is expensive work and few employers just give them free rein anymore.

---

You're more likely to receive free reign from the government or the university than private industry.

posted January 17, 2014 12:24 PM            

The first study cited in your article is here: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

According to a denier's review:

The authors of the paper are not saying “a bunch of smart scientist and engineer types think global warming is largely over-blown – maybe you should consider their perspective.” Rather, they are saying “Those poor engineer types up there in Alberta live in a world that revolves around oil and gas and their psyches are not able to grasp the true dangers of global warming because of the social and political structure in which they live. What are the proper tactics to bring them around to the right kind of thinking?” (Not their actual words, but my interpretation of their words.) http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/02/17 /science-or-science-fiction-professionals-discursive-construction-of-climate-change/

Does the study revolve around oil industry "scientists"? Yes, it does:

To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada.

This is your sample of 1077 "scientists".

From the discussion and conclusion, which is easily navigated to using the right hand sidebar:

Expertise, as we have pointed out, relies on credibility and has to demonstrate ‘informedness’ and objectivity of judgment. The overwhelming majority of these professionals use these elements to construct their frames and ground the appropriateness of their judgments; nonetheless they come to very different viewpoints concerning the ‘problem’ and attitudes towards regulation and action. However, these professionals do not only engage in a dispute over the ‘cause’ or content of their claim, i.e., the appropriate definition of an issue or the adequacy of a proposed solution; they also engage in identity and boundary work – to varying degrees – to legitimate themselves as experts and de-legitimate opponents as non-experts, while establishing the cognitive authority of their version of science versus others’ non-science. Defense can result from different worldviews and from identity threats.

Sounds a bit like us. Continuing:

Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, non-governmental, and corporate organizations. Following Levy and Rothenberg’s (2002) examination of the automotive industry, we find that professional experts employed in the petroleum industry are more likely to be sceptical of the IPCC and of anthropogenic climate change. Given this, the defensive institutional work of these professionals to maintain existing institutions clearly exceeds the mere maintenance of ‘routines and rituals of their reproduction’ (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 234). Marquis and Lounsbury (2007) suggest that banking professionals are more able to resist due to their stronger professional identity; Jonsson (2009) finds that professional resistance differs across firms, depending upon the relative influence of professionals and the logics associated. Our research connects and extends these findings to understand how defensive institutional work is performed in response to insider-driven challenges. We find that the heterogeneity of professionals’ framings is a function of their degree of identification/mobilization with others (as suggested by Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007) but is also a function of their degree of defensiveness against others (as suggested by Maguire & Hardy, 2009), even other insiders. Further, these professionals’ framings are also linked to their position within their firm (as suggested by Jonsson, 2009), to their industry, and to the industry’s relevance for the region (Levy & Rothenberg, 2002). We discuss this in more detail below. Hence, our findings give greater granularity in understanding which professionals are more likely to resist, why and how they will resist, and who is more likely to be successful.

Much like you do. Defensiveness rather than objectivity.

With our findings, we provide additional insights into climate change resistance. Our study confirms that there are significant framing differences regarding the existence of anthropogenic climate change and the consequent calls for action or, equally often, inaction on the policy and organizational level (see Hulme, 2009), even within professional experts in one particular geographical context. The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue. By looking into the content of the frames, the discourse coalitions they enable, and the identity and boundary work they entail, our results provide more nuanced insights into the subtleties of institutional defense.

They are studying deniers in an effort for insight on how to better respond to the artificial framings deniers come up with. This is not a study that proves a consensus. Not by a long shot. We haven't even gotten to the difference between this study, and the one I posted.

The Discussion and Conclusion goes on. It's a pretty good read. It goes on to talking about how the risks involved in climate change may be the thing that brings the opposing camps together:

Risk management is of fundamental concern to all – including energy – companies, insurance and finance industries, military and other government agencies. Professional engineers and geoscientists (and lawyers, accountants, corporate officers, etc.) are in the business of managing risk. Indeed, engineers have recognized these risks, been working behind the scenes, and revised the Canadian Building Codes to adapt to the changing climate. As our analysis of the different storylines shows, reframing climate change as a risk to be managed – as has been promoted by the IPCC in their recent report (IPCC, 2011) – has the discursive potential to provide a bridge (Snow et al., 1986) to integrate various frames (except ‘fatalists’ who seem generally apathetic) and inject a legitimate diagnosis, established prognoses, identity scripts, and motivational consensus. Financial risks would resonate with ‘economic responsibility’ adherents, environmental risks with ‘comply with Kyoto’ and ‘regulation activists’, regulatory risks with all anti-regulationists, and risks of contamination could resonate with ‘nature is overwhelming’. By using a common enemy – risk – an interest-based discourse coalition (Gray & Stites, 2011; Hoffman, 2011b; Nagel, 2011) may be formed that has the potential to overcome the defensiveness.

posted January 17, 2014 12:53 PM            

Clearly, if one study mines opinions from scientific papers, then there's nothing of a voluntary nature to it. It's retroactive, and a very accurate accounting of obtainable information. If polling of supposed climate scientists yields a different result the only possible conclusion is that those that were polled haven't participated in any published scientific papers on the climate. Who's a better judge, those studying the climate and creating papers for peer review, or those that might be studying the climate but not to the extent that any scientific papers are produced for review?

This isn't the first time I've been lead to read a Forbes article citing an AMS survey. These surveys aren't generally as they are portrayed. You can easily assess this for yourself by looking up one of their surveys. "2012 AMS survey" is what I used. The first result is a pdf of their survey.

Views about global warming
A very large majority of respondents (89%) indicated that global warming is happening; in contrast few indicated it isn’t happening (4%), or that they “don’t know” (7%). Respondents who indicated that global warming is happening were asked their views about its primary causes; a large majority indicted that human activity (59%), or human activity and natural causes in more or less equal amounts (11%), were the primary causes. Relatively few respondents indicated that the warming is caused primarily by natural causes (6%), although a substantial minority (23%) indicated they don’t believe enough is yet known to determine the degree of human or natural causation.

A large majority of respondents who indicated the global warming is happening indicated that if nothing is done to address it, over the next 100 years it will be very harmful (38%) or somewhat harmful (38%) to people and society; a small minority of respondents indicated that the harms and benefits will be approximately equal (12%), or that the warning will be beneficial on the whole (2.4%). Among those respondents who indicated the warming would be harmful (including those who indicated that the harms and benefits would occur in equal
measures), only a small minority indicated that all (2%) or a large amount (20%) of the harms can be prevented through mitigation and
adaptation measures; the more common responses were that a moderate amount (46%) or a small amount (22%) of the harm can be prevented.

All respondents were asked how worried they are about global warming: a large majority indicated they were very worried (30%) or somewhat worried (42%), while a minority indicated they were not very worried (20%) or not at all worried (8%). <A HREF="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ametsoc.org%2Fboardpges%2Fcwce%2Fdocs%2FBEC%2FCICCC%2F2012-02-AMS-Member-Sur " TARGET=_blank>http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ametsoc.org%2Fboardpges%2Fcwce%2Fdocs%2FBEC%2FCICCC%2F2012-02-AMS -Member-Sur[/URL]</A> vey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf&ei=gWjZUrTyM87_oQT-04CYCQ&usg=AFQjCNEkHwuUstnRmWykHkr-b27mK8uCqQ&sig2=ZjwocnLoGe8QdNS82oJ0bQ&bvm=bv.59568121,d.cGU&cad=rja

Some more context:

only about 1 out of 4 AMS Members responded to the survey.

Members must meet at least one of the following professional and/or educational requirements (although AMS holds a broad and inclusive interpretation of these requirements): hold a baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited institution of higher learning in the atmospheric or related sciences; or hold a baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited institution of higher learning in some other science or a related field and be currently engaged in a professional activity in which his or her knowledge is applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences; or have completed at least 20 semester hours of college level coursework in the atmospheric or related sciences and have at least three years of professional experience in the last five years.

Most (56%) had published in peer-­‐reviewed journals in the last 5 years. Of those who published, 23% had written more than half of their papers about climate change. Liberal respondents significantly outnumbered conservative respondents (48% vs. 21%).

A large majority of respondents were supportive of AMS playing a role in educating the public (82%) and policy makers (85%) about global warming.

AMS is not the survey you or any voluntary contributor to Forbes is looking for. Of course, you could have taken the relatively lazy approach of just looking at the comments section of your article in order to suss some of this stuff out for yourself.

posted January 22, 2014 11:20 PM            

Whatever consensus exists, exists only among the faux scientists, con artists and high priests of the man made global warming religion.