All Scientists Are Certain

About half of professional members of the American Meteorological Society believe global warming is mostly caused by humans, which is about the same percentage as among the general public.  The press interprets this in their typical Alice in Wonderland fashion.

“Forty-nine percent of Americans believe climate change is caused mostly by human actions, the survey found, the lowest share reported in several years of polling.

In other words, a narrow majority of the country disagrees with the nation’s scientists, nearly all of whom are certain that humans cause global warming.”

Do humans cause climate change? Even now, only half of Americans say yes. | The Hill

Meteorologists’ Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members in: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Volume 95 Issue 7 (2014)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to All Scientists Are Certain

  1. arn says:

    24/7 climate propaganda for decades,including shaming,lies,big tech, Hollywood,MSM –
    and yet more than half of the population does not believe in a lie that was created to deindustrialise and justify a global government.

    “What if a group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of rich countries?
    In order to save the planet the group decides: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

    Maurice Strong

  2. Gamecock says:

    ‘Forty-nine percent of Americans believe climate change’

    Petitio principii. Whatever ‘climate change’ is supposed to mean.

    DEMAND first to know which climate on earth has changed.

    Here’s a clue: double-ought zero.


    Science is not a popularity contest.

    ‘The disconnect between popular opinion and scientific fact on global warming stems from an age-old partisan divide, climate experts say, and reflects the opposing stances of scientists and oil companies.’


    Say, “Climate experts say,” in your best Jeremy Clarkson imitation.

    • ‘Climate experts’ are apparently free to make political comments, which lie outside their area of expertise, whilst declaring geologists and aerodynamicists unqualified to comment on their junk science twaddle.

    • GWS says:

      Belief is not enough. Show me where CO2 is proven to be driving the climate.

  3. Scott Allen says:

    I am going with Robert Horton the editor of the Lancet on believing the science.

    ‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.”

    • GWS says:

      Very few scientists are philosophers, and are therefore prone to dwell on details and processes, leaving the what and why questions for the theology department.

  4. Chewer says:

    And, if the leftist scientists would enter debates with their fellow scientists, the numbers would be almost as devastating as the pissed off crowds with pitchforks -:)

  5. What does the term ‘non-publishers’ mean? Also the survey is biased to those who had an interest in promoting the AGW scam, the rest would not have responded at all. It is a sample with a built-in bias, but is assumed representative of the population. If the first question were ‘do you like doing surveys?’, you would reach the astounding conclusion that most members enjoyed filling in surveys and didn’t have more important things to do. I suggest that the professional membership of the American Meteorological Society is greater than the 1831 who actually responded. Without some idea of the population size, this type of statistic may be taken with a pinch of salt.

  6. roaddog says:

    Half of all scientists are below average. The din of their pandering and protest is deafening, because after reparations for slavery come reparations for climate.

    • Climate science is awash with money, so doesn’t need to be too selective about the standard of worker employed, at least that is what the quality of the literature seems to suggest.

      • czechlist says:

        too many lawyers results in “ambulance chasers”
        too many “climate scientists” results in GHG chasers

  7. conrad ziefle says:

    Journalists can be really pompous about unproven premises, and topics of which they have very little understanding. That’s why we call it the Climate Change Religion. Give the amount of 24/7 propaganda which they put out, it is amazing that more than half of the people still believe what their eyes and experiences show them. We need to see the unpasteurized temperature data.

  8. It is depressing to see that as many as 49% of the public are still taken in by the climate scam. The press appear to define ‘top scientist’ as anybody who promotes the scam, they don’t listen to anybody else and do their utmost to suppress alternative views based on real, rather than junk, science. We can whittle the number of believers down by pointing out that the fund holders and the owners of the mainstream media require a global existential threat, real or imaginary, to implement their plans for world government. We don’t see corresponding howls of ‘mi-information’, when it comes to, say, the flat earthers. I wonder why. The ‘fact checkers’ seem very selective in the ‘facts’ they check.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *