It is true that many of the non-believers were scientists who had published in other areas
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
You didn't read the paper you are citing, did you?
Did you only read the Heartland faked emails?
The AMS is a broad group, comprised of some who have studied the climate and TV weathermen.
Only the untrained, mostly TV weathermen group were found to not support the idea of climate change.
TV weathermen.
Not, 'scientists in other fields', TV personalities. The ones not smart enough to become anchormen.
I can't believe you're using that study, all it does is show the difference between an organization that requires legit credentials and peer assessment and an organization based off of TV personalities.
If you're going to use that study, at least stick to calling it what it is. Try this for a claim you can really back up:
Most TV weathermen don't support the claim of climate change, showing that it doesn't take brains to point a stick at a screen and read the weather, while most of the AMS members who do have scientific training support accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
First, there's an notice from the author of the paper that says that Heartland misrepresented the findings of the study and tried to fraudulently pass off those findings.
http://blog.ametsoc.org/columnists/going-to-the-source-for-accurate-information/
Second, here is the very first paragraph from the study that you cited:
93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...nd_institute_sowing_global_warming_doubt.html
Finally, you may want do a little more background on this matter before you start insulting people's credentials.
The propaganda papers that you linked to on the NASA page that falsely claim to have found a consensus are based on results that captured a wide range of people, including meteorologists (eg., Doran and Zimmerman, 2009).
Wait, first you claim that meteorologists are very serious folk with your AMS poll, now you claim that they aren't because a couple were included in the NASA cited poll?
Which is it?
- It is reasonable to extrapolate that thousands of scientists with expertise in atmospheric science don't believe humans are the primary cause of warming.
You're bullshitting.
'extrapolate' means that you don't really have the numbers and you're guessing.
- There has never been a survey that found a consensus on the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are the primary cause of warming.
And is there a survey on the consensus for the theory of gravity?
Do you refuse to stop floating 1 foot in the air until a survey confirms it?
- Even if there were a consensus, it wouldn't change the fact that the computer model predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
Are you back to citing the faulty paper from your shoddy mathematician again?
Do you have any legit sources for this claim?
Or only your shoddy mathematician?
And even when you try to separate the responses to focus on the results you prefer, you still only get 78 per cent supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming (http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ec/02/meteorologists-global-warming-consensus). That's not a consensus.
