One-third of AMS members don’t agree with climate change orthodoxy

Posted: March 24, 2016 by oldbrew in climate, Natural Variation, opinion

Credit: NOAA

Credit: NOAA

Reblogged this from Dr Roy Spencer’s website as he no longer accepts comments. Climate consensus mythology exposed once again.

A George Mason University survey of 4,092 members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) on climate change attitudes in the meteorological community has just been released.

It shows fairly general acceptance of the view that climate change is happening, that it is at least partly due to humans, and that we can mitigate it somewhat by our energy policies. Fully 37% of those surveyed (including me) consider themselves “expert” in climate science.

It should be remembered that most of us old climate researchers were formally trained as meteorologists, with climatology being just a small part of our education.But what I find interesting is that the supposed 97% consensus on climate change (which we know is bogus anyway) turns into only 67% when we consider the number of people who believe climate change is mostly or entirely caused by humans.

Fully 33% either believe climate change is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half-manmade (I tend toward that last category)…or simply think we “don’t know”.

For something that is supposed to be “settled science”, I find that rather remarkable.

Source: One-Third of AMS Members Don’t Agree with Climate Change Orthodoxy

  1. erl happ says:

    I wonder if the 67% who believe climate change is mostly or entirely caused by humans includes any of the 37% who consider that they are expert in climate science?

  2. Ron Clutz says:

    A recent survey of the Canadian public also showed more skepticism than expected.

  3. graphicconception says:

    In a previous AMS survey, only 52% thought man was mainly responsible. See page 1034: Does this mean that the AMS is coming round to the consensus view?

    The AMS should be commended, at least they take surveys of the membership. Most science organisations just seem to let the “political committee” publish a position paper then they try to minimise any internal dissent. Only the Australian Geologists failed at this. Their internal dissent was so large that they decided to say nothing!

  4. Paul Vaughan says:

    If there’s a human component it’s empirically indistinguishable from 0%.

    The optics these 50-50 people (the funniest & most corrupt climate agents) convey by going with such an even split is that empirically & quantitatively they don’t have a clue and ethically they couldn’t be bothered to act with integrity. How can they endure the spotlight when their “leadership” is so shameful? I can only give 2 guesses: immeasurable hubris or a nice pay-off for optical posing — foul either way.

    What to do when the “experts” are so out-to-lunch empirically and aloof ethically? There’s little (probably absolutely nothing) we can do. Religion has steeped, politics has interfered with sharp teeth, and it will be at least generations before the truth is allowed into the mainstream spotlight. Those of us who love and appreciate nature for what she really is can do so for our own interests, but by now it’s absolutely clear that religious climate campaigns are strictly impervious to fact and that political climate campaigns not only cannot be trusted to respect fact but will even go to viciously & hatefully vengeful lengths to misrepresent fact with absolute zero regard for the ethics of doing so (chilling & creepy to say the least).

  5. erl happ says:

    Paul Vaughan. Your comment drips with disgust. Quivers with anger. Aches with dismay at the lack of integrity that renders ones efforts to correct the situation seem futile.

    A drip of water will wear down stone……steel yourself for the next round. Look for other platforms to present ideas.

    This is heartening:

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    It’s the Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM mentality Erl. They’re in the union and they don’t do 5:01.
    2+2=4 only if you fill out the form the way they want. And if the terrorist needs to be hunted down in the evening, in the middle of the night, or over the weekend they say, “Forget it!”

    I envision a different kind of order. A kind of order that shovels snow as the snow falls.

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    Erl, if you want to get really serious:

    Explore the longevity of (and changes in the longevity of) decadally clustered volatility of winds that barrel down from glacial heights to the East Greenland coast.

    Consider the question:

    What statistical properties of the pumping of the East Greenland Current relate to the decadal longevity of clustered wind volatility above the glacial heights?…

    Months ago I started pointing to some literature on katabatic winds and based on a post by Ron Clutz I think he may have picked up on the tip…

    If you’re ever at sea in a kayak when a katabatic wind strikes the coast from icy adjacent mountains, I think you might quickly be inclined to become a believer in the power of nature …and to perhaps even go so far as to instantly pray for divine assistance.

    _ _

    Fram Strait Ice Export & Western Nordic Sea Ice Extent reminder:

    _ _

    The unbearably dark Californian sun-climate belief-policing is based on strictly false spatiotemporal assumptions.

    Was it Bob Dylan who said you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?…


  8. Paul Vaughan says:


    The shape of the atmosphere changes with the solar cycle:


    Arctic Outflow Wind 101:
    Shape-longevity translates into pumping-persistence.


    Provocation for Erl:

    Is it really ozone??
    Or is it more simply just water?

    Maybe it is time to try to get people more sensible and serious about this…

    More provocation:

    Is the shape of water in the atmosphere different from the shape of the atmosphere (more generally)?

    Does neutron count rate variation with latitude and over the solar cycle tell us something about the shape of (water in) the atmosphere?

    I’m going to have to dig out those links on the winds driving the East Greenland Current so people can start developing some background awareness…

  9. Paul Vaughan says:


    1/(J+N) on the last graph needs to be changed to (φ/Φ)/(2(J+S)).