I frankly have no idea where Darren and others get the idea (from the media??) that 99.9% of scientists are firmly convinced in anthropogenic influence as the chief cause of global warming. From what i've seen in academia and the professional meteorology world over the last decade, there's a ton of skepticism among serious scientists over the whole idea.
First of all, nowhere did I state a figure like 99.9%. I see no need to distort my message to make your point. On the other hand you say there is "a ton of skepticism among serious scientists" (quite a quantifiable, scientific, and impressive amount!)
First of all,
all good scientists are skeptical.
Confirmation Bias is a big problem (in humans in general) and Good Science takes care to eliminate it from the process of scientific inquiry. That does not mean that scientific inquiry leads only to indecision and uncertainty. Evidence accumulates and conclusions (at first tentative, then stronger, and finally undeniable) are generally arrived at over time.
Where there is "a ton of skepticism" is among the general public, who are generally more uninformed. This is understandable, but willful ignorance is inexcusable. I would expect that stormchasers would more closely model the scientific community than the general public on that score, but I may be off-base.
Stan makes some good points regarding the differences between "global warming", "climate change" and "anthropogenic influence" however "global warming" and "climate change" are often used interchangably, even in science. And I don't think you are going to hear the term "anthropogenic influence" a whole lot in mainstream media. Climate change probably is cyclical, but human impact on this planet has never been anything like what it has been in the last two hundred years (since the industrial revolution). People understand that you can't sit in a garage with the door closed and the car engine running forever. Eventually the concentrations of carbon monoxide will grow to the point that there are dire consequences. (Most) people understand that you can't just continue to pump industrial waste into Lake Erie before it becomes literally flammable. Yet somehow people can't extend their grasp of that concept to the atmosphere, thinking that man-made CO2 can be absorbed by it forever, with no ill effects. But enough of "common sense" in the common man. Let's get back to the scientists:
Good Science is peer-reviewed before being published. An
article published in Science magazine took a look at all of the papers in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" between 1993 and 2003. There were 928 (peer-reviewed/published) papers:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
So where is this "ton of skepticism among serious scientists"? Apparently not among those who study and publish on the subject of Climate Change.
Now let's look at another group: Weather Professionals. Not all weather professionals
study climate change. But one
would expect them to be "up on" the subject more than the general population. Here's a news story from yesterday:
Global warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting ? A few quotes from that article:
Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority. . . . "I think there is largely agreement on the fact that over the last 30 years, that much of that warming has been attributed to human activities, in other words, greenhouse gas emissions," said Tony Socci, a American Meteorological Society senior science fellow.
He said those who denied the connection were either "badly informed as to the scientific center or consensus, or in some cases perhaps (they are) just not wanting to be informed.
I think it is interesting that (again) the media does not call it News that the vast majority of scientists are in agreement. The news is the "distinct minority" who are not yet convinced. This is an example of how the reporting in the news contributes to the confirmation bias of the "non-believers". If they want to maintain their doubts they will give enough weight to the "distinct minority's" opinions so that (in their minds) it actually outweighs the "vast majority's" opinion. The capacity of the human mind to rationalize is indeed remarkable.
However, this brings up another reason why a particular meteorologist's viewpoint should have NO BEARING on whether they get get AMA Certification. It does not help the cause of Good Science. It allows skeptics to say (as was also expressed in the article):
D'Aleo said there was an element of peer pressure to toe the party line.
"A lot of them are not willing to speak up because it might endanger grants and jobs," he said.
The ill-advised proposal to tie AMA Certification to one's views on global warming plays right into this sort of accusation. An opponent of such a view might point out that there is a TON of money out there for any scientist whose research might prove the other side, or at least cast significant doubt. However, look as you may, you won't find much of it in the peer-reviewed/published world of Good Science.
