Have you heard about the latest dirty tricks from the Heartland Institute?
The Heartland Institute has apparently sent out a mass email about a survey of American Meteorological Society (AMS) member attitudes to AGW. They managed to send it from an email address that had "AMS" in its name (although not the official AMS domain), and they prominently displayed the AMS logo (used without permission). Only in the fine print at the bottom did they disclose that the email was from Heartland, and not AMS. Also, in the text of the letter they characterize the results of the study in a way that conflicts with what at least one of the authors has to say about it (Keith Seitter, Executive Director of AMS).
Does this remind anyone of the cover letter that Frederick Seitz sent out with the "Oregon Peitition", which was designed to look like an official letter from NAS?
It's not strange that this question covers much of the same ground as Seitter's blog post--this was brought to my attention through an OFFICIAL AMS email that contained Seitter's comments.
Note that one result of this survey is very similar to other surveys: more than 90% of active climate scientists believe that humans have contributed to warming.
Ottawa Mike's claim of 52% is not correct--it's clear that he has fallen for Heartland's propaganda, or he's intentionally trying to spread misinformation. If you look at the actual paper you'll see that it's actually over 70%, even including climate scientists that are not actively publishing.
At the risk of having this question deleted, I will quote Ottawa Mike to show that he is wrong:
'Edit: "more than 90% of active climate scientists believe that humans have contributed to warming."
Yes, and I agree with them. But 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic'
The 52% was for all respondents--NOT for climate scientists.
It's hardly a technicality--it's approximately 20 percentage points difference, and it might lead someone to believe that this contradicts previous surveys, when it actually doesn't. I see this time and time again from the denial crowd, a sloppiness in thought and writing. Virtually all of the "bad forecasts" and "contradictions" that deniers claim are associated with AGW are in fact a failure of deniers to correctly read and interpret what has been written.
- Gary FLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
>>And regardless of your view point, the results do not support a 97% consensus in the least<<
The Heartland Institute headlines:
“Survey of Meteorologists Destroys Climate ‘Consensus’ Claims”
“AMS Survey Shows No Consensus on Global Warming”
“Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming.”
I used to try to give Curry a break by concluding only that she was wrong - not a liar. But there is really no other explanation for her comments here.
Bob B --
>> The sooner that you leftists abandon it, the less embarrassed you'll be.<<
You are right about one thing: We are embarrassed by being stupid. Deniers, on the other hand, are not only unburdened by embarrassment over being stupid, they seem to wear their stupidity as if it is some kind of damn Badge of Honor.
>>More than 90% of active climate scientists depend on the perception of a climate problem for making a living<<
They had jobs before they were studying global warming and they will still have jobs if they cease to study global warming - much like the way you were a scientifically illiterate twit before you ever heard of global warming and remain the same scientifically illiterate twit today.
Piltdown Man --
>>Are you implying that they would give different answers based on who asked? <<
Clearly, the Heartland Institute believed so.
>>Why do you think it is that the other scientific societies do not carry out surveys? <<
Because they are more concerned about the consensus of their members' scientific data and research results than their opinions.
Jim Z --
>> The discovery of the gorilla came at the time when Darwin's theory was brand new and controversial<<
There was not much scientific controversy - and less public outcry than you find in the US today. Scientists already knew evolution was a fact because they could see it in the fossil record. What the Theory did was provide them with an explanation of how what they already knew worked. And, Darwin was not the only person who had figured it out. He sat on "Origins" for decades (his father was a minister - blah, blah, blah... it's a long story) until he found out that Alfred Wallace was preparing to publish the Theory.
- MichaelLv 77 years ago
Global Warming ended over a year ago and all seasons have returned to normal naturally like it was in the early 1970's before Global Warming. Also all non solids like gases, co2, exhaust, smoke, etc. that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness by nature as it has been doing for over a thousand years. I proved this to 350 million people and 43,000 scientists that ex-President Bush hired in 2008 and was later investigated by some of the best professor's with high degrees hired by a TV station in Ohio that my facts were exactly correct. I'm a civilian called Global Command and when my Global Teams from all walks of life shut down Global Warming for my experiments to see how we could either destroy it or just shut it down. We've found that the actual enity is an ALIEN Organism during our process). I later sent a solution to a foreign country to help feed their people better and at the same time Turned Off Global Warming in 2012. MikeSource(s): FACTUAL LOGIC
- Ottawa MikeLv 67 years ago
Yes, I had heard about this but didn't think much of it at the time. WUWT has a snapshot of the email in question here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12...
I would agree that worst part appears to be the from box "AMS Survey" which links to 2013AMSsurvey@gmail.com. At the bottom it clearly shows that the email comes from Heartland. If you call that "fine print", well that's up to you. It would be a pretty unobservant dullard to not quickly conclude this email did not come from AMS.
And yes, one of the co-authors has published a rebuttal which strangely seems very similarly worded compared to this question: http://blog.ametsoc.org/columnists/going-to-the-so...
So yes, I was aware of this and yes, I did think it was a bit of a dirty trick. However, the resulting response from the AMS (and you now by this question) has resulted in a version of the Streisand Effect where there is now much more attention to the survey. And regardless of your view point, the results do not support a 97% consensus in the least. And the more people who know about this, the better IMO.
Edit: Here is Judy Curry's summary:
Edit4: (snip, not enough space)
Here is Curry's blog post on this subject (which sticks to the numbers interpretation not email addresses or logos): http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus...
Edit: "more than 90% of active climate scientists believe that humans have contributed to warming."
Yes, and I agree with them. But 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. This I question. And this is a far cry from the 97% figure that is touted in the MSM and by other alarmist climate scientists. You know as well as I do that the 97% figure is used try to show the science is settled. So who's really playing dirty tricks?
Edit2: Wrong, the 52% number is correct. Even a rabid warmist, Collin Maessen, addresses this here: http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/11/21/97-climate-s... and he shows the actual chart here where you can see the 52% in the far right column here: http://i2.wp.com/www.realsceptic.com/wp-content/up...
What his argument goes into and where he starts breaking off those who are not active in climate research or haven't had X peer-reviewed climate papers etc. Hey, that's fine, argue away.
The 52% number still correct for the entire sample size of n=1821. Anybody can dig into a total sample size and whittle away until he gets any numbers he wants.
Edit3: Very good pegminer, you got me on a technicality. I did an apples and oranges comparison. My bad.
Although, I was talking about the subject survey while you introduced a new parameter from some other survey which you didn`t even quote.
And your tone (`I will quote Ottawa Mike to show that he is wrong`) seems to suggest that you would like to strike my entire answer as "wrong" or that I am trying to "spread misinformation". If you can pick a technical aspect of somebody's statement or answer as incorrect (even an innocent omission), then we are all trying to spread misinformation.
So let me back it up and make it all right:
<new and corrected version>But 52% (from the entire sample size in the study of n=1821 which includes climate scientists and scientists from other disciplines) state that the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic.</new and corrected version>
There...done...100% accurate. So what is the earth-shattering impact on the rest of my answer because of this correction? Yes, that's right, not a damn thing. What a waste of time.
Do you really need to go to these lengths to score a "victory"? My one word description of you remains reinforced even more strongly: Pedantic with a capital P.
Edit5: Just so you know, I'm actually pleased with all of this because it shows how hard you need to work to find a flaw in my answers. Why you feel you need to be so pedantic with me is something you'll have to live with yourself. It doesn't affect me.
- 7 years ago
I have only seen this: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D...
I believe it is a genuine AMS survey. It seems that Heartland were sent a press release by the AMS and consequently sent out a link to a wider audience and highlighted the 52% on the last page.
Warmists would know all about "characterising the results" (Doran & Zimmermann, Cook et al, Anderegg et al, Oreskes, Marcott et al, Mann et al ...)
Strangely, it does not remind me much of the self-confessed wire fraudster Gleick who sent out details about Heartland that were either obtained by fraud or, allegedly, just made up.
The 52% seems quite clear to me. It means that only about half of the people surveyed by the AMS believe that Global Warming is mostly human caused.
Why do you think it is that the other scientific societies do not carry out surveys? Much better to appoint a committee of suitable activists and let them "decide". It isn't even your fault then. Politicians know how to cover themselves.
It is interesting, also, that you point out what I consider to be a warmist ploy.
Step 1. Publish some results slightly contrary to the consensus.
Step 2. Either add a disclaimer (e.g. These results in no way refute the consensus position ...) or deny it in media interviews, or both.
That way you can have things both ways - take the 70's cooling, for instance. Warming is going the same way: We never said it was only CO2, we never said it would warm constantly, We never said that natural variability was not important, the surface temperatures ..., the hotspot ..., the sea level rise ... , the models ... etc.
The Heartland view: http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/ams-survey-shows...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- JimZLv 77 years ago
You mention a mass mailing of emails from Heartland but I didn't know what you were talking about so found this from Slate.
Trust me, it is hard for a conservative to read garbage like that. It is so far to the left that it makes Karl Marx seem like Ronald Reagan. Sifting through the rhetoric, it seemed more like whining to me and trying to downplay a survey of the AMS which suggest an approximate split in opinion on human caused warming.
I am currently reading a book from one of Ottawa's previous links. It is called Between Man and Beast and essentially it is a book on the discovery of the Gorilla. Right now it is discussing Richard Owen who represented most of established science of the day (e.g. analogous to the "prestigious" National Academy of Science" associated with the Oregon Petition). Owen was arguing against evolution mostly against Huxley. The discovery of the gorilla came at the time when Darwin's theory was brand new and controversial. I can't help but notice that these whiners are the same bunch that argued with Owen against Huxley. They believe what they believe and they don't let facts get in their way.
You are right Facts Matter but Chicken Littles haven't changed. They were here 1000 years ago and they are still here. Ehrlich is among them. They are people with that sort of mindset where the cup is always half filled and we are all running out of everything. Since unlike you, I am not among that group, and it is probably easier for me to recognize them as a distinct entity but I wouldn't expect you to understand.
- Anonymous7 years ago
More than 90% of active climate scientists depend on the perception of a climate problem for making a living. The can hardly be blamed for finding one.
- Facts MatterLv 77 years ago
It reminds me of the PNAS-like review article I got in my mailbox back around, IIRC, 1995. Some things do not change, whatever denialists say. The upward trend in temperature is one, the antics of the Heartland Institute, and the infrared spectra of greenhouse gases among them.
Edit (can't resist): "I can't help but notice that these whiners are the same bunch that argued with Owen against Huxley." In that case, assuming they were out of grade school when the gorilla was discovered, they must all be at least 180 years old by now.
- IanLv 57 years ago
It is a bit deceitful although I wouldn't characterize that as fine print. They seem to shoot themselves in the foot every now and then. Reality will win in the end anyway.
- 7 years ago
Oh come on. You warmists claimed 97% consensus over an interview of 72 carefully selected climate scientists.
There is a big difference between pulpits. Do you really want to get started on that?
What are you worried about anyway? Are you implying that they would give different answers based on who asked?
BTW, It's getting cooler and has been for a decade.
- Anonymous7 years ago
I hope that the American Meteorological Society sues the Heartland Institute. If defamation of honest scientists and scientific organizations is tolerated, violence is an inevitable escalation. It will not be a matter of if, but when a climatologist is murdered.