{"id":381017,"date":"2025-05-31T13:15:07","date_gmt":"2025-05-31T11:15:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=381017"},"modified":"2025-05-31T13:15:09","modified_gmt":"2025-05-31T11:15:09","slug":"%f0%9d%90%93%f0%9d%90%a1%f0%9d%90%9e-%f0%9d%9f%97%f0%9d%9f%95-%f0%9d%90%82%f0%9d%90%a8%f0%9d%90%a7%f0%9d%90%ac%f0%9d%90%9e%f0%9d%90%a7%f0%9d%90%ac%f0%9d%90%ae%f0%9d%90%ac-%f0%9d%90%8c%f0%9d%90%b2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=381017","title":{"rendered":"\ud835\udc13\ud835\udc21\ud835\udc1e \ud835\udfd7\ud835\udfd5% \ud835\udc02\ud835\udc28\ud835\udc27\ud835\udc2c\ud835\udc1e\ud835\udc27\ud835\udc2c\ud835\udc2e\ud835\udc2c \ud835\udc0c\ud835\udc32\ud835\udc2d\ud835\udc21 \ud835\udc03\ud835\udc1e\ud835\udc1b\ud835\udc2e\ud835\udc27\ud835\udc24\ud835\udc1e\ud835\udc1d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

an X thread by Chris Martz<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most pervasive myths is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of \u201cclimate scientists\u201d agree that virtually all global warming since the mid-19th century is human-caused and that this warming is an existential threat to the welfare of the planet and all life on it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Except, this statistic is largely made up, and no matter how many times it is quashed, it persists as a talking point in online forums. Just yesterday, I received a comment, saying,<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\ud83d\udde8\ufe0f\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\u201c\ud835\udc36\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5c \ud835\udc60\u210e\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc64\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc61\u210e \ud835\udc62\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc66\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5f \ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5f \ud835\udc53\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc51 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc53 \ud835\udc52\ud835\udc65\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc64\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc54\u210e\ud835\udc60 97% \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc53 \ud835\udc50\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc60\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc54 \ud835\udc41\ud835\udc34\ud835\udc46\ud835\udc34?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, is this the same<\/p>\n\n\n\n

@NASA<\/a> that lost 14 astronauts between two manned space shuttle launch failures in 1986 and 2003? Or the same NASA that recently enlisted<\/p>\n\n\n\n

@SpaceX<\/a>\u2019s help to get astronauts stuck in space back to Earth? That NASA? Oof, that one is going to burn. Sizzle sizzle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83c\udf36\ufe0f\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Anyways, let\u2019s continue. . .<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\ud83d\udeb6\u200d\u2642\ufe0f\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\u200d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u27a1\ufe0f\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cconsensus of scientists\u201d with respect to climate change is not organic. It was manufactured through questionable data processing methods. When someone states the axiom \u201cAll scientists agree,\u201d it is usually a reference to two particular studies, both of which were published in Environmental Research Letters (ERL): Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021). Let’s look closer at these studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd0e\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\ud835\udc13\ud835\udc07\ud835\udc04 \u201c\ud835\udfd7\ud835\udfd5% \ud835\udc02\ud835\udc0e\ud835\udc0d\ud835\udc04\ud835\udc12\ud835\udc0d\ud835\udc12\ud835\udc14\ud835\udc12\u201d The paper that got this all started was published in ERL in 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd17\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1748-9326\/8\/2\/024024\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Led by cognitive psychologist John Cook, a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change and founder of the climate blog, Skeptical Science, he and eight co-authors skimmed the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published between 1991 and 2011. Of the 11,944 abstracts, 7,930 (66.4%) of them expressed \ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc90 \ud835\udc91\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc94\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc8f on the cause(s) of global warming since the pre-industrial era. Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts which endorsed either anthropogenic global warming (referred to as AGW hereafter) or natural global warming, 3,896 (97.1%) endorsed AGW. Only 78 (1.9%) rejected AGW, while 40 (1%) of them expressed uncertainty on the physical drivers. So, the \u201c97% consensus\u201d was contrived by omitting 7,930 (66.4%) of the 11,944 abstracts because those papers did not explicitly state a position on the cause(s) of global warming since the 1850s or so. That’s sausage-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83c\udf2d\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\ud835\udc13\ud835\udc07\ud835\udc04 \u201c>\ud835\udfd7\ud835\udfd7% \ud835\udc02\ud835\udc0e\ud835\udc0d\ud835\udc04\ud835\udc12\ud835\udc0d\ud835\udc12\ud835\udc14\ud835\udc12\u201d Like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) attempted to quantify the consensus on AGW.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd17\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1748-9326\/ac2966\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this synthesis, 3,000 climate papers were selected at random. In that batch, 282 were marked as false positives since they weren’t actually climate-related. That\u2019s fair. So, the analysis continued with the remaining 2,718 peer-reviewed articles. Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them took \ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc90 \ud835\udc91\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc94\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc8f on AGW. And, like Cook et al. (2013), all 1,869 papers neither endorsing nor rejecting AGW were discarded. Of the remaining 849 papers that did endorse a position, 845 (99.5%) of them sided with AGW while four did not. So, like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) ignored over 65% of the papers selected that didn’t take one position or the other on the physical driver(s) of global warming. By doing this, they could artificially manufacture a consensus on an issue where none actually exists if all of the relevant papers were considered. The advantage that Lynas et al. (2021) has over the former is that each paper was examined thoroughly rather than just reading the abstract. This made for a more thorough analysis despite the same flawed methodology both used in ignoring the majority of papers that took a neutral stance.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\ud83e\uddf5\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

1\/3 (Keep reading)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u2b07\ufe0f\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But, wait, there’s more. . . Climate activists often argue that Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) were justified in excluding the 66.4% and 68.8% of papers, respectively, that did not express a position on the causes of global warming, on the grounds that those studies were not focused on identifying or discussing causal links. But, that’s hand-waving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udc4b\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Not all studies that endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) specifically investigated the physical driver(s) of surface air temperature (SAT) changes since the mid-to-late-19th century. In fact, in order to qualify as endorsing (or rejecting) AGW, a paper merely needed to articulate a clear stance\u2014whether in the abstract, main body or discussion \/ conclusion\u2014regardless of whether or not the study’s focus was on physical drivers of temperature change. You will find when reading through the literature that papers challenging the narrative\u2014such as those on topics like climate model performance, temporal trends in extreme weather events and efficacy of \u201cnet zero\u201d energy policies\u2014will include a disclaimer stating that mankind’s carbon dioxide (CO\u2082) emissions are the proximate cause of all global warming in order to pass through peer-review, as to not sow doubt in readers that climate change is an existential crisis. As an example, a study on U.S. mainland hurricane landfalls might conclude that no increase in either the frequency or intensity has been observed since, say, 1900. However, the authors will include a statement, usually in the conclusion, something along the lines of,<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\ud83d\udde8\ufe0f\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\u201c\ud835\udc34\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc54\u210e \ud835\udc48.\ud835\udc46. \ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc51 \u210e\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc60\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc58\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc60 \u210e\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc63\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc60\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc54\u210e\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc66 \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc51 \ud835\udc60\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc52 1900, \ud835\udc64\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc61\u210e \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc5c \ud835\udc60\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc66 \ud835\udc60\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc54\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc63\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc51 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b \ud835\udc52\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5f \ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc53\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5e\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc66 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc53 \ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc57\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc5f \u210e\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc59\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc5f \ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5f \ud835\udc59\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc59 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc66, \ud835\udc50\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc57\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc59\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc59 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc66 \ud835\udc64\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc59 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc66 \ud835\udc65% \ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b \ud835\udc60\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc50\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5c \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5c \ud835\udc54\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5b\u210e\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc54\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc60 (\ud835\udc3a\ud835\udc3b\ud835\udc3a) \ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc60.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another point I should add about Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) is that neither paper frame their findings as being a reflection of the \u201cconsensus of scientists.\u201d Thus, when people claim that 97-99% of experts agree, that’s not actually what these studies purport. Rather, the papers actually [attempted to] quantify the \u201cscientific consensus\u201d on AGW, which is a consensus of what the published literature says. That is very different from a \u201cconsensus of scientists,\u201d which is essentially an expert opinion poll. What’s more, none of these reviews address the big question, which is whether or not global warming is [or will be] dangerous. Just because our greenhouse gas emissions \ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc66 have caused most of the warming observed since the onset of the Industrial Revolution says nothing about the level of danger or risk posed by it both short- and long-term. So, what do we actually know about what scientists think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming and (b) whether or not they think it is dangerous? Thankfully, we have some insight into that.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\ud83e\uddf5\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

2\/3 (Keep reading)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u2b07\ufe0f\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This is where things get juicy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83e\uddc3\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

While a \u201cconsensus of scientists\u201d (i.e., expert opinion poll) is less robust than a \u201cscientific consensus\u201d (i.e., synthesis of what the published literature concludes), one advantage that polling scientists for their opinion has over the latter is that it gives them anonymity to freely express their views on highly contentious topics such as climate change without having to fear losing a job or having their paper(s) rejected by biased journal editors (the gatekeepers).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professional organizations including the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and Royal Society often manufacture a \u201cconsensus of scientists\u201d by taking a very strong stance on an issue without first consulting the opinions of their members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One egregious instance of where this has occurred is within the AMS (which I am a member of).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On July 8, 2022, in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA\u2014which essentially limited the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants\u2014the former Executive Director of AMS issued a strongly worded \u201cSpecial Statement\u201d criticizing the Court’s ruling,<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\ud83d\udde8\ufe0f\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\u201c\ud835\udc47\u210e\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc68\ud835\udc74\ud835\udc7a \ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc94 \ud835\udc85\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc91\ud835\udc8d\ud835\udc9a \ud835\udc84\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc84\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc85 \ud835\udc83\ud835\udc9a \ud835\udc95\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc7c\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc85 \ud835\udc7a\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc94’ \ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc85\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc92\ud835\udc96\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc93\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc94\ud835\udc91\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc94\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc95\ud835\udc90 \ud835\udc84\ud835\udc8d\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc8e\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc84\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc88\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc82\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc85 \ud835\udc95\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc85\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc88\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc94 \ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc95 \ud835\udc91\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc94\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc94 \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5c \ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc5b \ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc51 \ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc59 \ud835\udc59\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc52. \ud835\udc47\u210e\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc51\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5e\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc66 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc51 \ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc66\u2014\ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc66 \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc5c \ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc66\u2014\ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc54\u210e \ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc46\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc36\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc51\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc5b \ud835\udc4a\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc49\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc54\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc4e \ud835\udc63. \ud835\udc38\ud835\udc43\ud835\udc34.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter continues, asserting without presenting a single shred of evidence, that,<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\ud83d\udde8\ufe0f\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\u201c\ud835\udc6a\ud835\udc8d\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc8e\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc84\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc88\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc94 \ud835\udc86\ud835\udc99\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc85\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc8d\ud835\udc9a \ud835\udc85\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc88\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc96\ud835\udc94 \ud835\udc61\ud835\udc5c \u210e\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5a\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc66 \ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc51 \ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc59 \ud835\udc59\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc53\ud835\udc52… \ud835\udc7b\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc91\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc94 \ud835\udc90\ud835\udc87 \ud835\udc84\ud835\udc8d\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc8e\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc84\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc88\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc90\ud835\udc84\ud835\udc84\ud835\udc96\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc88 \ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc98 \ud835\udc8e\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc84\ud835\udc89 \ud835\udc95\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc84\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc84\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc94\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc84\ud835\udc94 \ud835\udc64\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc52\ud835\udc65\ud835\udc5d\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc61 \ud835\udc87\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc8e \ud835\udc90\ud835\udc96\ud835\udc93 \ud835\udc88\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc96\ud835\udc94\ud835\udc86 [sic] \ud835\udc88\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc94\ud835\udc94\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc94 \ud835\udc82\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc85 \ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc95 \ud835\udc95\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc86 \ud835\udc90\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc93 \ud835\udc91\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc95\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc8d \ud835\udc85\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc8a\ud835\udc97\ud835\udc86\ud835\udc93\ud835\udc94 \ud835\udc90\ud835\udc87 \ud835\udc84\ud835\udc89\ud835\udc82\ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc88\ud835\udc86: \ud835\udc61\u210e\ud835\udc52 \ud835\udc60\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5b, \ud835\udc63\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc50\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc60, \ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc60, \ud835\udc50\u210e\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc54\ud835\udc52\ud835\udc60 \ud835\udc56\ud835\udc5b \ud835\udc59\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc51-\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc60\ud835\udc52, \ud835\udc5c\ud835\udc5f \ud835\udc5b\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc62\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc59 \ud835\udc63\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc5f\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc4e\ud835\udc4f\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc59\ud835\udc56\ud835\udc61\ud835\udc66.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd17\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/ametsoc.org\/ams\/assets\/File\/aboutams\/statements_pdf\/AMS_Statement-EPA-2(1).pdf\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, of course, this politically motivated jab at the Supreme Court was issued without the consultation of every professional member of the AMS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I know this because we actually have good insight into what AMS members think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming since the 1960s and (b) whether or not they think said warming is dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In January 2016, Dr. Ed Maibach and colleagues from George Mason University (GMU) polled all 7,682 (at that time) professional members of the AMS on their views on climate change. A handful of questions were asked with several follow-ups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd17\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com\/CP\/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The survey had a 53.3% participation rate and there were 4,092 respondents (p. 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udccb\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Here are a sample of the questions asked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"1\u20e3\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\ud835\udde5\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf1\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude00\ud835\ude00 \ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf3 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude02\ud835\ude00\ud835\uddf2, \ud835\uddf1\ud835\uddfc \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf8 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf6\ud835\ude00 \ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4? (4,091 responses)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u2705\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Yes: 96%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u274c\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

No: 1%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83e\udd37\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Don’t know: 3%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2726 [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered \u201cYes\u201d to<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"1\u20e3\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

] \ud835\udddb\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude04 \ud835\ude00\ud835\ude02\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf6\ud835\ude00 \ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4? (3,854 responses)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe2\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Extremely sure: 58%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd35\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Very sure: 31%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe1\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Somewhat sure: 10%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd34\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Not sure: 0%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2726 [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered \u201cNo\u201d to<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"1\u20e3\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

] \ud835\udddb\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude04 \ud835\ude00\ud835\ude02\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf6\ud835\ude00 \ud835\udc8f\ud835\udc90\ud835\udc95 \ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4? (53 responses)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe2\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Extremely sure: 13%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd35\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Very sure: 43%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe1\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Somewhat sure: 38%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd34\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Not sure: 6%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe2\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Extremely sure: 13%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd35\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Very sure: 43%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe1\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Somewhat sure: 38%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd34\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Not sure: 6%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"2\u20e3\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\ud835\uddd7\ud835\uddfc \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf8 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01 \ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude00 \ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf0\ud835\ude02\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddf1 \ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude03\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddff \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude00\ud835\ude01 \ud835\udff1\ud835\udfec \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\ude00 \ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude00 \ud835\uddef\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddfb \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude02\ud835\ude00\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddf1… (4,004 responses)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd34\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Largely \/ entirely by humans (>81%): 29%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe4\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Mostly by humans (60-80%): 38%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe1\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Roughly equally natural + man-made: 14%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe2\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Mostly by natural events (60-80%): 7%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd35\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Largely \/ entirely by natural events (>81%): 5%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83e\udd37\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Don’t know: 6%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u274c\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Climate has not changed: 1%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"6\u20e3\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\ud835\udde7\ud835\uddfc \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddef\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude00\ud835\ude01 \ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf3 \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02\ud835\uddff \ud835\uddf8\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude04\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddf1\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2, \ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude00 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02\ud835\uddff \ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddee \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddf1 \ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude03\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddff \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude00\ud835\ude01 \ud835\udff1\ud835\udfec \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\ude00? (4,002 responses)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u2705\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Yes: 74%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u274c\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

No: 11%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83e\udd37\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Don’t know: 15%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2726 [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered \u201cYes\u201d to<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"6\u20e3\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

] \ud835\uddea\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5 \ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf3 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf3\ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude04\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4 \ud835\uddef\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude00\ud835\ude01 \ud835\uddf1\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude00\ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddef\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude00 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddf0\ud835\ude01(\ud835\ude00) \ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf3 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddf9 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02\ud835\uddff \ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddee \ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude03\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddff \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude00\ud835\ude01 \ud835\udff1\ud835\udfec \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\ude00? (3,546 responses)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe2\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Exclusively beneficial: 0%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd35\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Primarily beneficial: 4%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe1\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Equally mixed, beneficial + harmful: 36%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe4\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Primarily harmful: 36%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd34\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Exclusively harmful: 2%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83e\udd37\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Don’t know: 21%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"7\u20e3\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\ud835\udde7\ud835\uddfc \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddef\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude00\ud835\ude01 \ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf3 \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02\ud835\uddff \ud835\uddf8\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude04\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddf1\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2, \ud835\ude04\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf9 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddf9 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02\ud835\uddff \ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddee \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude03\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddff \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude05\ud835\ude01 \ud835\udff1\ud835\udfec \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\ude00? (3,963 responses)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u2705\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Yes: 78%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u274c\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

No: 5%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83e\udd37\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Don’t know: 17%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2726 [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered \u201cYes\u201d to<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"7\u20e3\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

] \ud835\uddea\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5 \ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf3 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf3\ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude04\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4 \ud835\uddef\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude00\ud835\ude01 \ud835\uddf1\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude00\ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddef\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude00 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddfd\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddf0\ud835\ude01(\ud835\ude00) \ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf3 \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddfc\ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddf9 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf9\ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfa\ud835\uddee\ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf0\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf4\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddf6\ud835\uddfb \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude02\ud835\uddff \ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddee \ud835\uddfc\ud835\ude03\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddff \ud835\ude01\ud835\uddf5\ud835\uddf2 \ud835\uddfb\ud835\uddf2\ud835\ude05\ud835\ude01 \ud835\udff1\ud835\udfec \ud835\ude06\ud835\uddf2\ud835\uddee\ud835\uddff\ud835\ude00? (3,761 responses)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe2\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Exclusively beneficial: 0%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd35\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Primarily beneficial: 2%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe1\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Equally mixed, beneficial + harmful: 29%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udfe4\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Primarily harmful: 47%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83d\udd34\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Exclusively harmful: 3%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\ud83e\udd37\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Don’t know: 19%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, based on this 2016 survey of professional AMS members, of those who responded,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, based on this 2016 survey of professional AMS members, of those who responded,<\/p>\n\n\n\n