The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has released its preliminary report surveying its members views about global warming. The survey did not find the consensus so often boasted by climate change alarmists.
Here are a few interesting points from the summary:
- Only 89% of members of the AMS believe the Earth is warming (not 97% as often touted by activists)
- Only 74% of those who believe the Earth is warming are very or extremely sure
- Only 59% of those who believe the Earth is warming believe the cause is mostly human caused
- 30% believe the cause is either natural, or don’t think there is adequate evidence to declare a cause
- 59% of AMS members are wrong about what proportion of climate scientists think that human-caused global warming is happening
- Only 52% of the respondents hold a PhD
Sifting Reality 
You are a qualified critic of science since you evidently haven’t bothered to learn anything at all about the climate or physics. Such astonishing ignorance combined with an equally gullible acceptance of a book filled with myths, errors and fables (the Bible) explains why you are also a Christian.
The difference between the predictions of climate science and the prophecies of the Bible is this: climate science is reliable whereas there isn’t ever going to be a second coming, nor (for that matter) any eternal life for anyone in either heaven or hell.
Those who wait for Jesus’ return will still be waiting in vain 5 billion years from now when the sun itself will suffer its own death.
Actually, more than 90% of the predictions made by scientists were greatly over estimated. They have failed. Funny how you comment on this post, one where I cite the American Meteorological Society. They aren’t even in consensus.
I don’t need to be a scientist to see that predictions and data don’t align with the real world as we see it.
In fact I cite reputable sources when I post on environmental issues that show the “science” isn’t settled.
I’ll leave the other nonsense you introduced alone because it doesn’t rise to the level of needing a response. When you can offer something other than a caricature, I’d be glad to address your issues with the Bible and Christian theism.
When you claim, “90% of the predictions made by scientists were greatly over estimated”, I wonder: According to whom?
Since you are not a climate scientist, nor are you a scientist of any sort, I will dismiss the above claim as simply misinformed. It is not proper to call a misinformed person a liar, which I would do in the case of those who are qualified to comment about climatological matters yet have chosen to represent the interests of oil corporations, coal corporations and polluters instead.
You say, “I don’t need to be a scientist to see that predictions and data don’t align with the real world as we see it.” Sadly enough, you are wrong. You actually do need to be a scientist to compare the predictions of scientists and the data they collect and evaluate.
Also, I will point out that those sources which you consider “reputable” are not in the least bit reputable. Gullibility of your sort is extremely beneficial to the world’s polluters and they exploit your ignorance. Such behavior is immoral and amoral and also very profitable.
As to the failure of Christianity, Jesus’ long-delayed and never-fulfilled return, and the many errors, myths and contradictions of the Bible: I suppose that I am qualified to speak about these subjects since I have actually read the Bible. Anyone who takes such a book seriously might actually believe in talking snakes, man-barfing whales, and re-animated corpses … but fortunately most Christians protect their mind from such absurdities by not read the Bible. Ignorance and lack of curiosity is a means of intellectual self-defense for the Christian.
2 things. Reputable sources are noaa, and mainstream news agencies. Why not peruse my posts in the environmentalism tab. My posts are sourced.
Second, my 90% claim is based on climate models that have made predictions as to what the weather and climate would be as of now.
I’m curious, are you a climate scientist? If not then how can you dismiss what I say without dismissing what you say? If you having read the bible makes you qualified to judge it even though you aren’t a credentialed theologian or historian, then I can discuss and opine on climate claims because I read climate reports. See how that works?
You say, “Reputable sources are noaa, and mainstream news agencies” … and I respond my suggesting that you manifest an inability to properly interpret information from either of these sources from a scientific standpoint. Those people who are qualified to speak about climatology are climatologists. You are only qualified to misunderstand and misinterpret what they say.
You say, “Second, my 90% claim is based on climate models that have made predictions as to what the weather and climate would be as of now.” In saying this you are objectively wrong.
You ask, “I’m curious, are you a climate scientist? If not then how can you dismiss what I say without dismissing what you say? ” I am not a climate scientist. Your comments are dismissed because they are ignorant and factually wrong.
You ask, “If you having read the bible makes you qualified to judge it even though you aren’t a credentialed theologian or historian, then I can discuss and opine on climate claims because I read climate reports. See how that works?” You actually don’t need to be a theologian or a historian to know that the Bible is wrong. Anyone reading the text carefully enough will recognize that it is filled with absurdities and errors (talking snakes and talking donkeys, for example).
However my comments about the Bible are derived from the conclusions of scholarship, specifically theologians, historians and textual critics. These qualified people have spoken and they recognize that the Bible is fallible, errant and filled with contradictions, errors and prophecies which have failed and won’t ever become fulfilled.
That’s how I know that no resurrection ever occurred and no second coming will ever occur. Jesus’ death is very similar to the death of so many others in that way. Jesus’ death was a tragedy. That is all.
Have you read the posts under the environmentalism tab yet? You have said a few times that I don’t know how to understand what I read in the news, so why not actually visit the posts and sources and explain it. All you’ve done is tell me you think I’m wrong. You’ve done nothing to actually refute my claims thus far. Telling me I’m wring is not the same as showing that I am.
You ask, “Have you read the posts under the environmentalism tab yet?” I’ve just sifted through them and I can only say: you spend a whole lot of words saying very little. There is nothing to refute since you haven’t said anything of substance nor anything which would refute the sciences of physics, chemistry and climatology.
You haven’t said a single thing which might serve to refute any conclusion reached by science regarding the impact of pollution (that is, carbon dioxide) upon the atmosphere, the oceans, and the stable climate which has served human civilization so very well over the last 10,000 years. If you actually want to engage in an argument that is precisely what you must do: say something!
It is amazing how many Christians fail to comprehend this aspect of argumentation. It is not simply enough for you to say “no, I don’t believe.” If you want to argue science you will have to do some actual intellectual work. You’ve got to use that brain and make an effort.
The scientists have worked very hard to reach their conclusions. They can speak with authority about their predictions and compare the outcome of present day events to those predictions. You haven’t done any of this work so you aren’t qualified to comment.
Now do you want to claim that the Bible’s talking snakes and talking donkeys and man-swallowing whales and empty graves are factual, historical events rather than myths composed by pre-scientific people who couldn’t distinguish their own dreams from reality?
Resurrections don’t happen. That’s a plain scientific fact and objective reality. Humans don’t have souls (in this humans are pretty much identical to all the other animals on the planet). God doesn’t either guide or predict the future.
If we have the most CO2 we have ever had in our atmosphere and CO2 is an absolute cause for changing the weather patterns and causing extreme weather events, why has this year had the least amount of extreme weather events in decades? Low tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, days over 100 degrees, and a host of other issues?
You ask: “If we have the most CO2 we have ever had in our atmosphere and CO2 is an absolute cause for changing the weather patterns and causing extreme weather events, why has this year had the least amount of extreme weather events in decades? Low tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, days over 100 degrees, and a host of other issues?”
You’ve fit a whole lot of ignorance into one question. Should I educate you on the fundamentals of science in a blog post? You need to visit a university and take some high school level science classes. Either that or you could read some books.
There are even websites devoted to climate written by scientists. You could find such websites easily enough if you were honestly interested in this subject. I am not going to play professor and attempt to educate you my means of blog post.
Shall we talk about talking snakes, suns standing still in the sky, and gold boxes which kill humans by touch and other such Biblical fictions? I suppose that you know more about the Bible than you do about science. Such a conversation is more entertaining, too, since the Bible’s stories are absurd and sometimes pornographic.
Why did God kill Onan? Why didn’t God kill David? Explain that if you wish.
Let me summarize what you’ve said in this post: you’re wrong, so wrong I don’t have to refute your claims. Also the bible is stupid.
Will you be adding anything to the discussion, or should I just let this go?
Also, will you be commenting on the content of this post at all?
I’d like to address your first bullet point that “Only 89% of members of the AMS believe the Earth is warming (not 97% as often touted by activists)”
Allow me to clarify that anyone (scientist or not) can be an AMS member. However, 97% of climate scientists (members of the AMS or not) do think that human-caused global warming is happening.
The AMS itself confirms that climate change is real and human-induced. See the following excerpt from their official statement:
“…It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation…”
No, only 97% of those who responded to a survey agreed, and that was a small minority of the overall field. Not only that, according to some of the climate scientists, there views were misrepresented.
Let me try again to make this clear.
“Only 89% of members of the AMS believe the Earth is warming (not 97% as often touted by activists)”
You say “Only 89%,” as if it’s a bad thing, when in most cases 89% looks like a large majority. (The 97% is in regards to scientists, not what you originally posted here. Let’s not conflate the two)
This survey is limited to AMS members, which can be anyone; teachers, students, you, me, anyone. It surveys a small minority of the population. People who believe in climate change look to consensus of climate scientists not consensus of AMS members. Being a member signifies nothing.more than an interest in meteorology. These results do not support nor undermine climate science, they show that a large majority of members of the AMS agree with the AMS that climate change is real. I’m not sure why you seem glad about that.
“Only 74% of those who believe the Earth is warming are very or extremely sure”
Uncertainty is OK.
“Only 59% of those who believe the Earth is warming believe the cause is mostly human caused”
Accepting responsibility is hard.
Only 52% of the respondents hold a PhD”
Knowledge is power. Education is key. An open mind is necessary.
Angela
Let me make THIS clear. The 97% number only refers to those climate scientists who responded to the survey which is a small fraction of those in the field. Of those who responded, there are some among them who protest that their papers cited don’t assign a cause. The number “97%” is very misleading ASIDE from the AMS.
John
I agree the number IS misleading, especially in the context of your original post about an entirely different survey, so why did you put it there?
Have you any thoughts on the AMS’s official statement? http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
That actual scientific consensus is coming from many studies from multiple organizations from around the world. The consensus is made up of a large body of evidence, not just a single small survey.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.htm
Will you allow yourself to even look?
i often wonder why Christians don’t view this in the same good vs evil framework they do other things. (right wrong black white angels demons)
Dirty smokestacks vs clean windmills, think about what you are ultimately defending.
can we agree smoking is bad for our health? A consensus?
Do you want the earth to belch toxic pollution towards Heaven? Is that your offering to God?
Do you allow yourself to consider opposing views from credentialed climate scientists?
Unequivocally yes. I want to know and understand as much as possible about everything.
I could be mistaken, but it seems like you don’t think I check multiple sides of an issue becsuse I don’t conclude the same as you
“The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero…The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.” — Nature and Climate Change
Hello John,
You responded to my comment by saying: “Let me summarize what you’ve said in this post: you’re wrong, so wrong I don’t have to refute your claims. Also the bible is stupid.”
You really aren’t listening, are you? You asked a question which the climate scientists have already answered, repeatedly. For example the question was answered just this last Sunday in the opinion section of my own local newspaper:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/a-smoking-planet/2153882
You may read a scientific evaluation of the global warming predictions here if you wish:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html
The weather extremes which you mentioned receive some scientific consideration here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/texas-national-climate-assessment.html
And so forth …
If you really need (and insist upon) receiving ten thousand pages of scientific evidence regarding the known and observed impacts of climate change upon extreme weather events I assure you that such information exist and is readily available to anyone who honestly has an interest in the subject.
Yet I’ve read your blog and your own words suggest that you don’t have an honest interest in this subject and that is why you insist upon asking a question which science has already answered. There are entire books devoted to this very subject which you could find without extraordinary effort at a library.
***
You say, “Also the bible is stupid.”
I didn’t say any such thing.
What is your opinion of the miracles performed by Apollonius of Tyana, as recorded by Philostratus?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/aot/laot/
Here is another ancient book for your reading pleasure:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/true/
Don’t you see? If you are in need of an education I am more than qualified to educate you. Listen and learn, as they say …
I’m not convinced you’re in a position to educate beyond linking to blogs. However, if I provided thousands of pages of data which contradicted yours, what do you do with that? Dismiss it?
If you want to discuss the bible, I’d be happy to. But you’re going to have to take it to a relevant post or the discussion page.
Hello John,
You say: “I’m not convinced you’re in a position to educate beyond linking to blogs. However, if I provided thousands of pages of data which contradicted yours, what do you do with that? Dismiss it? ”
All talk and no links. If such data exist (and it does not) you should have mentioned it already. Then I will have an opportunity to either discuss the data or dismiss your interpretation of the data.
As to my ability to educate you: I can assure you that it is not my duty to educate you. I’ve spoken to many climate change deniers who play the ignorance game (though there are many cases in which they aren’t playing!) and insist upon receiving an education in basic physics, chemistry, statistics, history, the scientific method, astronomy and perhaps even cosmology.
It is not my job to educate you. Nor is it the job of the climate scientists to educate you. There is an entire profession which is dedicated to the task of educating people. You will find people devoted to that task at your local college or university. They get paid for their work and they deserve every penny.
That’s how the free market works. Those asking for a free education on the internet will not receive it from me.
You say: “If you want to discuss the bible, I’d be happy to. But you’re going to have to take it to a relevant post or the discussion page.”
Wonderful. I shall!
If you’ve read my posts on the subject, you’d see links to news agencies highlighting challenges by climate scientists to the popular thought. They also highlight the candid admissions that we just aren’t warming any more.
Hello John,
“If you’ve read my posts on the subject, you’d see links to news agencies highlighting challenges by climate scientists to the popular thought. They also highlight the candid admissions that we just aren’t warming any more.”
You said you had links to “thousand of pages of data” and it turns out that all you have is links to news articles which you misunderstand and misinterpret.
Oh well …
What is your opinion of the following article?
http://www.icr.org/article/7731/
What does the following scientific article suggest about the reality of the greenhouse effect?
http://www.icr.org/article/temperature-water-vapor-canopy/
Please express your opinion regarding the following statement by Dr. Roy Spencer:
“7) Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming? There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can’t cause warming anyway. They claim things like, “the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated”, or something else very technical. [And for those more technically-minded persons, yes, I agree that the effective radiating temperature of the Earth in the infrared is determined by how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth. But that doesn’t mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere]. While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. ”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/
Do you agree or disagree?
So you see, I could very easily present you with links to thousands of pages of material reflecting your own opinions regarding climate change, though such links might prove to say quite the opposite of what you imagine they say.
The sciences of chemistry and physics are quite well established and supported by more than a century of scientific observation and mathematical interpretation. The science is well established, the denial is not.