Climate Change Study Discovers Scientists "Not Great" At Responding To Emails

Forgive the Onion-esque headline, but it'll all make sense by the end of the article, I promise.

Today, a friend on Facebook posted a link to Forbes article by Forbes contributor James Taylor entitled: "The Latest Meteorologist Survey Destroys The Global Warming Climate 'Consensus' in which he reveals the results of a study by the American Meteorological Society, and claims that this study is:

"... the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist."

 He goes on to conclude:

"In short, the news for global warming activists is far worse than the survey results showing barely half of meteorologists believe humans are primarily responsible for some global warming. The reality is when you factor in the other necessary components of a global warming crisis, clearly less than half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe in the frequently asserted global warming crisis."

I spent some time looking over both his article and the study itself, and the truth it I'm confused by the language of Taylor's article. Specifically, his statement in reference to the study's findings concerning whether or not climate change is occuring and, if it is, if it's causes were primarily human-driven, natural, or a mix of the two.

"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." 

Specifically, the second sentence confuses me the most. It seems to combine survey responses of  "Yes, Global Warming is happening and is equal parts human and natural" with "Yes, Global Warming is happening and is natural" responses, "Yes, Global Warming happening but the reason is unknown" responses as well as "No, Global Warming is not occuring" responses.

While Taylor's above-quoted statement isn't untruthful, it seems misleading given the context of the study. Why would anyone combine positive and negative responses into one block of information unless they were obfuscating the actual information? The study isn't an easy read, but I'll do the best to explain why I feel Taylor's is skewing the data in the manner I have suggested above. I encourage you to read the study yourself, regardless of your political leaning, if only so that you are up to date on what meteorologists (at least, those that were surveyed) are saying about the issue of Global Warming today.

Basically, Taylor's presentation of the data makes it look something like this:

Okay, that looks like some data alright. However, the survey itself states 89% of the sample said that global warming is happening (rather than “not happening” or “don’t know”). While Taylor isn't *lying* when he says that "48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause," this statement is misleading when juxtaposed with the headline "The Latest Meteorologist Survey Destroys The Global Warming Climate 'Consensus.' If anything, the study shows that an overwhelming majority (89%) of AMS members surveyed believe global warming IS happening, and more than half of the total surveyed believe it is driven *primarily* by human activity. So, if I was to present the exact same data to make it look like, say, the opposite of Taylor's point, it would look something like this:




But, what does the study actually say? The AMS study's accumulated data, undoctored by either agenda, looks like this:

I made a political cartoon.

Right away, you probably checked out a little, which is okay, because the data isn't simple. In fact, it's sort of complicated and nuanced. Your political alignment (mine is Neutral Good) influences how you perceive the data, because of course you don't want to be the tiny sliver getting eaten by the giant Pac-Man of people who think your opinion is dumb. What I'm getting at can be summarized by the culmination of my entire lives creative expression that can be seen to the right.

What truly interesting about the study (because I know you've been super interested if you've read this far) is that the study abstract clearly states that there has been "tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic" and the study itself was intended to "explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals."

Scientist: how dog i change my gmail passwrd gais

The study also admits that only slightly more than a quarter (26.3%) of those asked to participate did, in fact, participate to the extent of answering the above question. Now, I will be the first to point out that I am neither a meteorologist nor a math scientist guy (I'm a Half-Elf  Bard 8/Sorcerer 6), but even I can see that a sample that only includes 26% of the experts in a field is a best an incomplete study of a professional classes opinions. If anything, this study has taught me that meteorological scientists are simply crap at answering their emails and filling out surveys.

I suppose an alternate, biased analysis of the astoundingly low response rate could be "Well, the other 73.7 percent probably figured that the survey was stupid and that Global Warming is obviously a liberal lie/greatest threat mankind has ever faced."

On a completely unrelated note, here's the transcription from the D&D game I ran yesterday:

GM: "You have entered into the hall of the evil goblin king, Forbes. He's been seeding confusion via his wicked agents, the "Contribu-tors." As you approach, mystical energy seethes at his feet as he stands and bellows out a riddle meant to scathe your soul!"

'Pathetic fools! Riddle me this; is global wa-'

Player: I THROW MY SWORD AT HIS DICK