More bad news for the Church of Global Warming, as a new survey reported at Forbes finds support for man-made climate change falling to 52 percent in the American Meteorological Society:
The American Meteorological Society, working with experts at George Mason University and Yale University, emailed all AMS members for whom the AMS had a mailing address (excluding associate members and student members) and asked them to fill out an online survey on global warming. More than 1,800 AMS meteorologists filled out the survey, providing a highly representative view of scientists with meteorological, climatological, and atmospheric science expertise.
The central question in the survey consisted of two parts: ???Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause???? Answer options were:
Yes: Mostly human
Yes: Equally human and natural
Yes: Mostly natural
Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
Yes: Don???t know cause
Don???t know if global warming is happening
Global warming is not happening
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
As Forbes goes on to note, this survey didn't even challenge "climate change" true believers with the sort of questions that would whittle that 52 percent figure down into a small, but noisy, minority:
Importantly, the survey addressed merely one of the necessary components of a human-induced global warming crisis. The survey did not ask whether temperatures are warmer than those of the Medieval Warm Period or other recent warm periods, did not ask whether temperatures are warming at a rapid pace, did not ask whether recent warming has been harmful or beneficial and did not ask whether transforming our energy economy would stop global warming or pass a cost/benefit test. Certainly, many of the 52 percent of meteorologists who believe humans are primarily responsible for some warming would nevertheless question some of these other necessary components of a human-induced global warming crisis.
May I ask the American Meteorological Society precisely why it didn't ask these important follow-up questions? I suspect the answer is, "because they really didn't want to know the answers." Factor out the people who believe in man-made climate change but can't explain Inconvenient Truths like the Medieval Warm Period, or the current climate-change "pause" of nearly two decades, which absolutely none of their models foresaw. Take away the people who think man-made climate change is either a very minor issue, or actually beneficial.
What remains would be the crisis-mongers, who have an absolute grip on government power in the United States, for as long as people like Barack Obama find them useful. What percentage of meteorologists do they represent now, after punishing years of hard data that shreds global-warming mythology, while hoaxes and frauds lay exposed? 35 percent? 30? Less? Shall we check again after the "climate change pause" hits 20 years?
Clearly there is no "consensus" among climate scientists, and there never really was, not even in the salad days of the Church of Global Warming. There were a lot of hard-core scientific frauds running in the Eighties and Nineties, creating academic pressures that scientists were reluctant to resist. In the early years of the "pause," it was more reasonable to suppose the problem itself existed in a big way, leaving human involvement the major topic of debate. But even then, nothing like the "consensus" claimed by fanatics and opportunistic politicians ever existed. At best, the number of scientists who would answer a binary "do you believe in climate change" question in the affirmative was somewhat higher than it is now... but as the AMS survey shows, it was never truly a Yes or No question.
And science is not a matter of consensus. That is the realm of politics, which has always been one of the greatest corrupting influences upon the scientific method. As James Taylor of Forbes remarks:
Scientific truth is determined by facts, evidence and observations ??? not a show of hands. If a show of hands determined scientific truth, medical doctors would still be bleeding people with leeches and we would still believe the sun revolves around the earth. Nevertheless, there may be times when political leaders feel compelled to give special consideration to an overwhelming scientific majority when that overwhelming majority reaches strong agreement on a matter of serious public concern.
Global warming activists claim a serious public concern presently exists and the overwhelming majority of scientists agrees humans are creating a global warming crisis. The survey of AMS meteorologists, however, shows no such overwhelming majority exists. Indeed, to the extent we can assign a majority scientific opinion to whether all the necessary components of a global warming crisis exist, the AMS survey shows the majority does not agree humans are creating a global warming crisis.
But we're still spending billions of dollars based on Church of Global Warming ideology, ranging from money poured into green-energy rat holes, through the delay of vital projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline... at a time when the fracking revolution has brought America to the verge of true energy independence. The more shaky the case for man-made climate change grows, the more loudly fanatics scream for the burning of heretics. Every question is now answered with a sturdy blow from the "Science Is Settled" cudgel; fanatics speak openly of abridging or erasing the First Amendment to deny free speech to those who challenge their beliefs.
It's long past time we put paid to the illusion of climate-change believers as disinterested seekers of truth and saviors of the planet, while all who question their edicts must be hired knives in the employ of Big Oil. Big Climate is perhaps the biggest business on the planet, one of the largest special interests you can find. Gigantic amounts of money, and enormous political power, are riding on this ideology. It's one of the most useful tools for the expansion of government in the free world, hovering right on the line of "because I said so" dictatorship, as you can see from the movement's easy lapse into totalitarian denials that honorable dissent is possible at all.
It's long past time strip the climate-change movement of the pretense they represent a consensus of scientists... because there is no consensus, and they represent interests that have nothing to do with science. Those who possess high-quality data don't have to protect their hypotheses by invoking peer pressure to silence doubters. Take away the peer pressure, and nothing remains except brute government force... which we should also take away.
