Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | January 19th 2009 01:00 AM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
Peter Doran, Associate Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, wasn't all that happy that his Nature paper(1) was widely used  by detractors of early 2000s global warming theory so he set out recently to find out just how many other earth scientists believe in human-induced climate change.

His research then found that some parts of Antarctica had cooled between 1986 and 2000 so he was lumped in with those disputing global warming, something he did not say.   Doran found out, just as Bill Gray later would when he disputed Al Gore's contention that global warming caused Hurricane Katrina, when you go up against crazy people with an agenda life can get ugly.

When temperatures in Chicago are at wind chill -5o degrees Fahrenheit, it might not seem like a good time to wade back into the politics of climate change, but he has done it with a survey asking how many earth scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Unfortunately, the wording of some of the questions was too vague to gain a lot of traction with skeptics.  For example:

(1) Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?

(2) Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Who would disagree with those things?   A guess is that 90% of people would agree with that wording and the other 10 percent wouldn't only because they are looking for a trap.   As science readers here would expect, he found that 90 percent of the scientists surveyed agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.    There are 6X as many people on the planet as there were in the 1700s and they all have to be fed so  it would be more surprising if there were not an impact on the environment.

What global warming skeptics have disputed is the CO2 reduction goal of a Kyoto treaty that basically claimed American cars caused global warming but Mexican, Indian and Chinese cars did not - and a target date that seemed arbitrary, allowing a country like a unified Germany to simply have closed newly acquired USSR-era East German factories and make their target goals without economic penalty, or for France to just use more nuclear power and claim they are being environmentally responsible.

What is interesting is how the numbers  broke down.   Climatology researchers had a Middle East dictatorship-worthy 97 percent agree that humans were causing global warming but petroleum geologists only had 47 percent believers and meteoroligists  64 percent.  The entire population rests right in the middle, at around 58 percent.  You can bet it would be higher with the wording above.

Doran says the petroleum geologist response "is not too surprising" - one would presume that he means because of their jobs, their integrity is for sale, whereas climatologists rely on government grants and there's no way to know how many government grants were turned down for skeptics of global warming theory.  Generally we have to protest when it is alleged that any science group is going to disagree for reasons that are personal and not scientific but we are a science site and not an advocacy one so our noting of his qualifier will likely get us lumped in as Holocause deniers or shills for Big Oil.  

Meteorolgists are dismissed out of hand by him.   "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."   So the next time you need an accurate hundred-year climate forecast, go to a climatologist and see how well it works.

Climatologist opinions certainly carried more weight with him.   "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

3,146 responded and were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded.

After examining the results of the nine-question survey was short,  Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions.

REFERENCES: 

(1) Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002) | doi:10.1038/nature710

Comments

Stellare's picture
What is a climatologist? Geologists, meteorologists and the rest of the geoscientists, yes even solar physicists are entitled to be called climatologists if they address that specific topic. In order to understand the complex restless Earth system, many fields of science are necessary. Geodesy, the science of the Earth's shape, velocities, rotation and gravity field, obviously contribute to understanding climate change. One example is sea level change. Meteorologist deal with the temperature, etc. There isn't a field of climatology separate from other relevant scientific fields.

Politics disturb a sound scientific approach to climate change.

Hank's picture
That was my concern too.   Meteorologists and geologists (the latter who provide data about the ice cores that tell us about the climate of the past) don't count apparently only because they are not faithful enough to popular beliefs - which feels more like doctrine than science.    

There's a difference between being anti-science cranks and doing clean science.   If 97% of people believe on any new science, especially one as complex as climate, it has to be treated with some suspicion.

jtwitten's picture
for France to just use more nuclear power and claim they are being environmentally responsible

Actually, using more nuclear power compared to fossil fuels is environmentally responsible.
Doran says the petroleum geologist response "is not too surprising" -
one would presume that he means because of their jobs, their integrity
is for sale

The negative view of petroleum geologists is the writer's assumption of what Doran is thinking.  Later quotes from Doran also support an alternative theory that he believes that petroleum geologists lack the expertise to evaluate the issue appropriately.  Condescending, yes, but ethically different.

I was interested to find this blog. 20 years ago I had a book published on different economic concepts to point the way to a sustainable world economy. Someone who liked the book contacted me this year to suggest that I update and re-publish it as a blog. She set up the blog, and the book is now complete on the blog in a series of postings. There are now also additional pieces on global warming and other subjects. Here is the link:

http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com

With all good wishes,
Charles Pierce

Translated for those who failed to read and understand the article- 97% of climatologists surveyed don't want their funding cut and are willing to say whatever is necessary to keep their funding. Doran's survey validated the findings presented in the video "Global Warming Swindel". Thanks Doran!

The most telling "skeptic" piece I've ever seen. The science findings are acknowledged as obvious, "Who would disagree with those things? A guess is that 90% of people would agree with that wording and the other 10 percent wouldn't only because they are looking for a trap.: That my dear skeptics IS the science.

What the author and others have problems with is the economic and political impact of the solutions. That is not the realm of climatology.

Thanks to all for the frank admission- and those who still lie to themselves about the issue.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.