Description
(*edit* please see in comments below, for the typical alarmist argument- one that only requires ignoring the source of the very information presented, in favour of their biased interpretation. I also note that item of information after item of information has been ignored by the person in question, in favor of their narrow-minded narrative.)
A recent survey conducted by Weather Central and George Mason University makes this claim: TV Weathercasters’ Views of Climate Change Appear to Be Rapidly Evolving
Meteorologists examine causes of weather change every day. They are the scientists most likely to understand when unusual weather extremes are weather or climate change. Thus they have been polled every year about climate change.
However most don’t respond. Basically three fourths of weather scientists choose NOT to get entangled in a political, non-scientific debate. In 2015 the response rate was 22%, just 32% in 2016 and in 2017 just 22%. And as true for most skeptics, most agreed climate change is happening. However the question is: What is the cause of that change?
Of 2017’s respondents, only 15% thought climate change was entirely due to humans, while 34% thought 60 to 80% could be attributed to human activity. However the survey did not separate human contributions to climate change from urbanization, deforestation, loss of wetlands or CO2 .
One fifth, or 21% thought changes were mostly or entirely natural while 8% admitted they just didn’t know.
So for ALL meteorologists surveyed only 11% actually claimed humans were mostly responsible for observed climate change: 22%(response) X 49% (attribution).
The survey was done by advocates of CO2 warming at ClimateCentral. Read it here:
goo.gl/zCTGea
SO, 51% OF THOSE POLLED BELIEVE NATURAL CAUSES ARE AT LEAST HALF OF CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE.
Also, many interesting comments on it here
wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/22…
Some examples:
'A fair number of skeptics would be loathe to answer such a poll, especially from a university with decidedly green sympathies. Promises of anonymity can be broken, particularly by those pursuing an agenda.'
'as bizarre as it seems, some people have to pledge belief in a human aggravated climate catastrophe to maintain job security. You have to echo the views of the folks who pay your bills, lest they cease doing so.'
'Similar results have been reported previously.
This is from:
Verheggen, Bart, et al. “Scientists’ views about attribution of global warming.” Environmental science & technology 48.16 (2014): 8963-8971.
pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/…
6500 climate scientists were asked. 29% responded. 66% thought anthropogenic GHGs contributed more than half to global warming. Only 17% supported the IPCC view that anthropogenic GHGs are responsible for >100% of observed warming (all observed warming plus more, compensated by cooling from anthropogenic aerosols).
Considering the intense professional pressure to conform, that they only get two out of three is pretty damning.'
-------
The above poll is similar in many respects to the original '97%' poll, as follows:
10,261 scientists were polled (all American)
A whole host of sciences involved in climate studies were left out of that first poll (such as solar scientists).
Only 3600 of those scientists actually answered the poll.
MOST of those 3600 scientists were disappointed / displeased by the extremely limited scope of the TWO questions which the poll consisted of, which allowed for NO latitude in opinion on the subject.
Out of those 3600 who answered, those who orchestrated the poll chose 79 people who were 'actively' publishing in climate.
Therefore- TOTALLY IGNORING THAT OVER 2/3 OF THOSE POLLED NEVER EVEN RESPONDED, AND THAT THE BULK OF THOSE WHO DID WERE UNHAPPY WITH HOW THE POLL WAS HANDLED- they chose to base their '97%' claim upon .74% of those polled.
Now, does this sound at all plausible to you?
-------
And last but not least:
There are those who claim that there are 'hundreds' of scientific organizations which agree that current climate change is 'man-made.'
These same people also claim that one MUST be a climate scientist in order to have an opinion on the matter.
These same people claim that meteorologists are not climate scientists, therefore they cannot have a valid opinion.
The American Meteorological Association is one of those scientific groups they go on about.
DO YOU SEE THE DISCONNECT HERE?
btw, many of those scientific organizations do not have a single climate scientist on their roles. I mean, seriously, a psychology group? Among many others.
