Am Meteorol Soc AMS
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">---</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">called out by grijalva, foia'd, result? (also curry, pielke, balling etc 7</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">az rep paper symp, Am Meteor Assoc, crow too march</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-arizona-republic/<b>2015</b>0312/282514362007779</font></p><p>
</p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ASU prof 'shocked' to be target of Dems' climate probe</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Anne Ryman The Republic | azcentral.com</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>march 12 2015</b> no lnx </font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ASU President Michael Crow, in a written response to Grijalva last week, said the university will comply with the public-records request. However, Crow said he has "personal concerns" about the manner in which Grijalva is proceeding.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Scientists at seven universities%2C including ASU%2C are subjects of probe over climate-change research funding.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">U.S. Rep. Ra%FAl Grijalva%2C D-Ariz.%2C is seeking records on external funding going to Robert Balling Jr.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Balling%2C an ASU professor%2C says he has properly disclosed all his funding.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>An Arizona State University scientist said he is "shocked</b>" to be among seven researchers at the center of a probe by an Arizona congressman over funding for their climate-change research.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., wrote letters to seven universities last month, saying he has concerns about issues of potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources related to climate research. The issues were raised in a New York Times article.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Grijalva is seeking records on external funding going to Robert Balling Jr., a professor in ASU's School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning. The request also seeks drafts of any testimony Balling prepared for a government body or agency and correspondence surrounding his testimony and funding dating back to 2007.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The congressman sent the letters in his role as the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources. He wrote in the Feb. 24 letters that "my colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Balling, in an interview with The Arizona Republic, said there is "absolutely no truth" to the suggestion he failed to disclose funding sources.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"I have zero concerns," he said. "I know what's there."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>ASU President Michael Crow, in a written response to Grijalva last week, said the university will comply with the public-records request. However, Crow said he has "personal concerns" about the manner in which Grijalva is proceeding.</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>"I strongly urge you and your colleagues to be aware of and to consider the principle of academic freedom as you continue your pursuit of documents and information from universities and individual faculty members," Crow wrote in the letter.</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ASU President Michael Crow speaks at the grand opening celebration of SkySong 3 in Scottsdale on Tuesday, January 13, 2015.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Crow said the university's policy on academic freedom gives researchers the right to search for truth and knowledge without obstruction or restraint.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The American Meteorological Society</span> has also weighed in with a letter to Grijalva. Singling out specific researchers based on a perspective they have expressed "sends a chilling message to all academic researchers," the society said.</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The records request is the latest controversy to erupt in the contentious field of climate change. Climate scientist Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, who works at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been criticized recently over <b>allegations </b>he accepted grants from fossil-fuel companies and didn't disclose all the corporate funding.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Soon has called the attacks a "shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writing."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">The same week Grijalva's letter went out, three other Democratic senators sent letters to 100 fossil-fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations. The letters sought to determine whether they are funding climate-change studies and whether the funded scientists failed to disclose their funding sources in scientific publications or in testimony to legislators.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">Grijalva's letter went to scientists at the University of Delaware, the University of Alabama, Georgia Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Colorado and Pepperdine University, as well as ASU.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">The ASU letter says that, according to a 2012 news article and other sources, Balling as recently as 2012 was receiving $1,000 monthly from the Heartland Institute, "a group funded in part by Altria and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation that once proposed to teach children that climate change is a hoax — despite Balling's claims that he had not been involved with the organization since 2008."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Balling said the claim keeps resurfacing but is false. He said that around 2008 he went to New York City for a meeting with the Heartland Institute and received an honorarium of $1,000.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"I've never seen a dime (from them) since," he said.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Balling, 62, has worked at ASU for 30 years. He has written four books on climate change. His 1992 book, "The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality," explored the position that <b>global warming will be moderate rather than catastrophic.</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"Any time you write an argument against the popular vision, you are branded," he said.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ASU Professor Robert Balling (right) is one of seven researchers who have received letters from an Arizona congressman, asking for information on the funding of their climate-change research.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In the past, while he was director of the Laboratory of Climatology at ASU, funding sources included money from fossil-fuel companies, among other sources, Balling said. He added that he properly disclosed the funding and that researchers often seek funding from a variety of sources.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Since 2004, he has been involved in and now runs a master's degree program in g<b>eographic-information systems at ASU, which he describes as a "breath of fresh air" compared to tense climatology meetings.</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A spokesman for Grijalva directed questions to the<b> House Committee on Natural Resources,</b> which issued a statement that the committee continues to pursue information that sheds light on financial conflicts of interest in the preparation of testimony and policy recommendations to lawmakers.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"We look forward to productive conversations with the recipients of our letters about getting the information we need. ... We have every expectation of full and fair disclosure," the statement said.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Balling said the committee is welcome to any documents he has.</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>"It's a free country, if these guys want to investigate it. I would freely release anything I have. But they better get ready to be bored because there's not much to see."</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Reach the reporter at 602-444-8072 or anne.ryman@arizonarepublic.com.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></p><p><a href="https://theenergymix.com/2017/02/10/u-s-scientists-counter-courtroom-attack-on-noaa-climate-science/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://theenergymix.com/2017/02/10/u-s-scientists-counter-courtroom-attack-on-noaa-climate-science/</font></a></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2/17</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">american scientists and scientific organizations are pushing back against a lawsuit demanding that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) release 8,000 pages of drafts, email discussions, and peer review critiques leading up to a 2015 study that debunked the notion of a “hiatus” in global warming between 1998 and 2012.</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Now more than ever, it is critical that we defend climate scientists and their research,” said Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF), one of the organizations responding to the lawsuit by the conservative organization Judicial Watch. “Forcing the disclosure of scientists’ private emails is invasive, unnecessary, and hugely detrimental to the scientific method."</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Judicial Watch suit “</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">was inspired by a Congressional subpoena from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, who denies the science of global warming and the need to take action,” InsideClimate News reports. The accusations against NOAA had already been refuted, but were amped up last weekend by the Daily Mail, a UK tabloid that has since been </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; transform: translate3d(0px, 0px, 0px); backface-visibility: hidden; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none !important; outline: 0px !important;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 400;">disavowed</span></a><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"> by Wikipedia as an unreliable source.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) blog, Director of Science & Policy Peter Frumhoff says the 2015 study, published in the journal Science, was one of several that refuted claims that the rate of global warming had slowed down or paused in recent decades. The Daily Mail “screed”, he said, came from David Rose, “a writer with a history of inaccurate reporting on climate science.”</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">The article was an example of a “very old strategy,” Frumhoff writes. “</span><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent; transform: translate3d(0px, 0px, 0px); backface-visibility: hidden; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none !important; outline: 0px !important;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 400;">Repeated</span></a><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"> and </span><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/05/noaa-scientists-manipulated-temperature-data-to-make-global-warming-seem-worse/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent; transform: translate3d(0px, 0px, 0px); backface-visibility: hidden; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none !important; outline: 0px !important;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 400;">amplified</span></a><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"> through the climate denial echo-chamber, Rose’s allegations of misconduct have now been taken up by Rep Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Science Space and Technology Committee. Smith, who has long used his perch to harass NOAA scientists, issued a press release reiterating these unsubstantiated claims and accusing [retired NOAA climate scientist Thomas] Karl and colleagues of manipulating data for political purposes.</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">”</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; text-align: justify;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The amicus brief from the CSLDF, the UCS, and the</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> American Meteorological Society </span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">a</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">rgues that </span></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">“groups across the political spectrum have attempted to discredit scientific studies they dislike…by seeking to use the scientists’ emails and preliminary drafts against them.”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"> Frumhoff warns that, “along </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">with other recent high profile attacks on prominent climate scientists and science agencies, this may well be part of a larger political strategy to intimidate federal scientists, justify cuts in agency budgets, staffing and missions, weaken support for U.S. and international climate policies and, most fundamentally, erode public trust in science and evidence so central to a functioning democracy.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">”</span></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">InsideClimate reports that it’s unclear whether the Trump administration would defend its own researchers against the lawsuit. But Michael </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Halpern, deputy director of the UCS’ Center for Science and Democracy, said the new regime “might not want to set a precedent that all government information should be public</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">.”</span></font></p><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div></div><div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">6/18 tie protest blue red sub group</font></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/e-mails-reveal-how-much-misery-trump-caused-meteorologists-with-false-claims-that-hurricane-dorian-threatened-alabama-report/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/e-mails-reveal-how-much-misery-trump-caused-meteorologists-with-false-claims-that-hurricane-dorian-threatened-alabama-report/</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>E-mails reveal how much misery Trump caused meteorologists with false claims that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama: report</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Donald J. Trump, joined by U.S. Senator Rick Scott, R-Fla., receives a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) briefing update on Hurricane Dorian as it approaches the U.S. mainland Saturday, Aug. 31, 2019, at Camp David near Thurmont, Md.. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Alex Henderson November 8, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Donald Trump has been surrounded by so many scandals and controversies that a scandal from two months ago can seem like a lifetime ago — for example, the Hurricane Dorian/Alabama fiasco of early September. With the Ukraine scandal and an impeachment inquiry in the U.S. House of Representatives dominating the headlines, few journalists are still talking about the Dorian/Alabama debacle. But journalists Asawin Suebsaeng and Sam Stein, in a November 7 article for The Daily Beast, discuss a series of e-mails showing just how much misery Trump caused the National Weather Service in order to avoid admitting that he had made a mistake.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Back in early September — when Hurricane Dorian was getting ready to pound the East Coast of the United States — Trump claimed that Alabama was going to take a direct hit. But the National Weather Service corrected him, stressing that Alabama wasn’t in Dorian’s direct path. A more responsible president — Barack Obama, for example — would have admitted to making a mistake and said something along the lines of, “The National Weather Service informs me that contrary to what I previously reported, Alabama is not in Dorian’s immediate path. I stand corrected. But I cannot stress enough that Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas must take every possible precaution.” Trump, however, doubled down on his mistake and insisted that that Alabama had, in fact, been in danger.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Trump, Suebsaeng and Stein recall, altered a “days-only forecast” map to “prove that Alabama was in danger when it really wasn’t. It was yet another bizarre, protracted episode of the Trump presidency and one that, as e-mails released under the Freedom of Information Act show, created massive internal headaches for personnel at various agencies.”</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suebsaeng and Stein explain that meteorologist “e-mail traffic provides a window into just how much Trump can upend the functions of a government in the midst of a crisis — all in the service of satisfying his pet grievances or fleeting fixation of the moment.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a September 5 e-mail, for example, Chris Darden — who was in charge of the National Weather Service office near Birmingham, Alabama — wrote, “This has really gotten out of hand.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Darden was frustrated, Suebsaeng and Stein note, because “workers directly involved in handling hurricane response were forced to turn their cellphones off because of the influx of media calls seeking an explanation for the president’s tweets and his accompanying efforts to prove he’d been right about Alabama all along.”</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump’s inability to admit he had made a mistake, according to Suebsaeng and Stein, became an unnecessary headache for the National Weather Service at a time when Dorian was a very real threat — although not for Alabama.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The incoming e-mails appeared to truly start deluging on September 4, after Trump held an Oval Office event at which he displayed a map of the country on which he had scribbled, with a sharpie, an extended cone designed to show that Alabama had been in the path of Dorian,” Suebsaeng and Stein point out.<b> “Earlier, the National Weather Service office in Birmingham had insisted that the state was not in danger, and with the president now directly — if not ham-fistedly — contradicting that proclamation, the calls and e-mails began arriving in bulk.”</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), according to Suebsaeng and Stein, decided to release a statement backing Trump’s claim that Alabama was in danger — and NOAA programmer Alek Krautmann, in an e-mail to public affairs officer John Leslie, complained that the statement “is deeply upsetting to NOAA employees that have worked the hurricane and not fully accurate based on the timeline in question.”</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">World M O called harvey result of agw</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/naomi-klein-face-it-flooding-disaster-climate-change">http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/naomi-klein-face-it-flooding-disaster-climate-change</a></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see Mann bk Holdren Harvard aaas prez support early, also EOS am geophy jrnl</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">around p 114</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">31 orgs letter to lamar smith 6/29/16</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">lamar:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span id="docs-internal-guid-65b92192-cb2f-d228-1c4c-ee4d103adec1">Ever since Smith gained control of the committee in 2013, its most conservative faction has </span><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/07/lamar_smith_broadens_his_attacks_on_noaa_scientists.html">aggressively questioned climate science and funding</a>, including<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/25/3725782/scientists-scold-science-committee-chair/">charging the scientists</a> at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of misrepresenting climate data.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 21px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span id="docs-internal-guid-65b92192-cb2f-d228-1c4c-ee4d103adec1"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">That feud earned the committee an unusual rebuke last year in a joint letter from major scientific groups: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American<b> Chemical</b> Society, the <b>American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society</b>, the American Statistical Association, the Ecological Society of America, and the Geological Society of America. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">They said the committee's actions were chilling scientific inquiry—the very charge Smith is now making about the investigations into Exxon.</span></span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Smith and his allies on the committee bitterly oppose the Paris climate treaty and action on climate change generally, with many of them vocally doubting the mainstream scientific consensus on the climate crisis. At hearings, the panel's majority often invites testimony weighted toward this view.</font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/25/meteorologists-climate-consensus/
3/16
ccording to a <a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=be7108eccd&e=d462721836" target="_blank">new survey</a> of American Meteorological Society (AMS) members, 95 percent of meteorologists conclude <a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/">climate change</a> is happening, and more than 80 percent say it is human-caused.
</font><p><a href="https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3" rel="attachment wp-att-380116"><span class="image-container alignnone wp-image-380116 size-full" style="max-width:750px;max-height:515px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><img class="alignnone wp-image-380116 size-full" src="http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/climatemetchart.jpg" alt="climatemetchart" height="515" width="750" /></font></span></a>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The survey represents a shift in the stance on climate change views among meteorologists that is reflective of that of the <a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=f25094e266&e=d462721836" target="_blank">American public</a>.
Nearly 90 percent of AMS members say they are more convinced than ever
in human-caused climate change, and one in five say their opinion about
climate change has changed in the past five years.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The shift is driven by “new peer-reviewed studies, the growing
scientific consensus on climate change, and evidence of climate change
where they live.”</font>
<strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For a deeper dive:</font></strong>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>News</strong>: <a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=f0d398e11a&e=d462721836" target="blank">Washington Post</a> $, <a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=96921a6c67&e=d462721836" target="blank">The Hill</a></font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>Commentary</strong>: <a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=398feab017&e=d462721836" target="_blank">Forbes, Marshall Shepherd column</a></font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">==
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/12/09/document_daily_01.pdf</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">METEOROLOGISTS’ VIEWS</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A Survey of American Meteorological Society</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professional Members</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">by <b>Neil Stenhouse</b>, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Andrea Bleistein, Paul Croft,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Eugene Bierly, Keith Seitter, Gary Rasmussen, and <b>Anthony Leiserowitz</b></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In a survey of AMS members, perceived scientific consensus was the strongest predictor</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">of views on global warming, followed by political ideology, climate science expertise, and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">perceived organizational conflict.</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">AFFILIATIONS: Stenhouse, Maibach, Cobb, and Bierly—</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia; </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Ban—The Weather</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Channel, Atlanta, Georgia; </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bleistein—NOAA/Office of the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Assistant Secretary for Environmental Observation and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Prediction, Washington, D.C.; Croft—Department of Geology</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">and Meteorology, Kean University, Union, New Jersey; Seitter</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">and Rasmussen—American Meteorological Society, Boston,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Massachusetts; Leiserowitz—Yale University, New Haven,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Connecticut</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Neil Stenhouse, George Mason</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University, 4400 University Drive MSN 6A8, Fairfax, VA 22030</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">E-mail: nstenhou@gmu.edu</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">25% response rate</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">curry cited as </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 20.034px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">At one point, Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts sparred with witnesses including Judith Curry, chairwoman of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, who asked the senator whether he was aware of a </span><a href="http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/12/09/document_daily_01.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; line-height: 20.034px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">survey</a><span style="line-height: 20.034px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> of more than 1,800 members of the American Meteorological Society that showed 52 percent of those asked said climate change was occuring and humans were to blame. DOES IT? "all respondents")</span></font></div><div><span style="line-height: 20.034px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DISCUSSION. Our findings regarding the degree
of consensus about human-caused climate change
among the most expert meteorologists are similar
to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 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
(Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010).</font></div><div><span style="line-height: 20.034px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">--</font></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Meteorologists and other experts in atmospheric and
related sciences are one group of professionals whose
involvement is particularly important. As experts
on weather and weather prediction, they will play a
variety of important roles in helping other stakeholder
groups make informed decisions based on changing
expectations about climate and weather. Their technical
expertise is complemented by the fact that members
of the public see climate scientists and broadcast
meteorologists as trustworthy sources of information
on climate change (Leiserowitz et al. 2012).
Research conducted to date with meteorologists
and other atmospheric scientists has shown that
they are not unanimous in their views of climate
change. In a survey of Earth scientists,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Doran and
Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority
of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans
have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this
was a substantially smaller majority than that found
among all Earth scientists (82%). Another survey,
by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83%
of meteorologists surveyed were convinced humaninduced
climate change is occurring, again a smaller
majority than among experts in related areas, such as
ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">d global warming is occurring. For example,
in Doran and Zimmerman’s survey study, while only
82% of the total sample indicated they are convinced
that humans have contributed to global warming,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
89% of active publishers in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature and 97% of climate experts who publish
primarily on climate change in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature indicated they were convinced</span>
(Doran and Zimmerman 2009; Kendall Zimmerman
2008). As a result, our first hypothesis is as follows:
H1: As compared with professionals with less
expertise in climate change, professionals with more
expertise will have higher levels of personal certainty
that global warming is happening, will be more likely
to view it is as mostly human caused, and will be more
likely to view it as harmful rather than beneficial.
Political ideology. Decision making about how to mount
an effective societal response to climate change in
the United States has been complicated by increasing
polarization over the issue, which has occurred
largely along political lines. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In the late 1990s, similar
proportions of liberals and conservatives saw global
warming as real; by 2008 (Dunlap and McCright
2008)—and continuing to the present (Leiserowitz
et al. 2012)—large differences had emerged such
that liberals were more likely to see it as real, and
conservatives had become increasingly skeptical.
This growing polarization appears not to be caused by
differences in scientific understanding—indeed, most
Americans know very little about the science of global
warming (Leiserowitz et al. 2010)—but rather by differences
in political ideology and deeper underlying
values (Kahan et al. 2011). </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Many conservatives see
the solutions proposed to mitigate global warming as
being more harmful than global warming itself due
to their effect on the economy (McCright and Dunlap
2011). Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to
accept the dominant scientific view, as they see the
proposed responses to global warming as strengthening
activities they value—namely, protection of the
environment and regulation of industrial harm.
One might expect scientists’ norms of objectivity
to prevent their political ideology from influencing
their evaluation of scientific findings. Indeed, in one
study scientists’ opinions on global warming policy
responses varied by political ideology, but their views
on the basic science did not (Rosenberg et al. 2010).<b>
However, other studies suggest scientists’ views on
science can be influenced by ideology. </b>A survey
of members of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science showed that conservatives...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">==</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><p id="BlogTitle" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 5px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">American Meteorological Society Finally Takes a Stance On Climate Change</font></p><p id="BlogDate" style="margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Posted By <u>Timon Singh</u> On August 30, 2012</font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">When it comes to climate change [4], certain groups in the United States are still resistant to the idea despite evidence from the US Military [5], US Forestry Commission [6], NASA [7] and assorted independent studies. [8] Now after years of sitting on the fence over the issue, the American Meteorological Society has released its official position on climate change, and they say that the Earth is indeed warming due to human activity.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In an official statement [9], <a href="http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html">http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html</a> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The American Meteorological Society said: “There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea “level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice [10] are shrinking.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases [11]continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The group added that while natural cycles of warming are to be expected, the evidence clearly points to human activity as the cause of the climate change the earth is currently experiencing.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Among the evidence cited [9] includes the fact that all of the 10 warmest years in global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. Meanwhile in the US, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide,” the group said [9]. “The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The society also warned that their simulations have predicted an increased proportion of global hurricanes falling into the strongest categories (4 and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale). Also while the total number of storms may not change and heat waves and cold snaps will continue, there will be proportionally more extreme warm periods. Droughts [12] and high temperatures will also put pressure on the world’s crop systems.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">+ American Meteorological Society [9] <a href="http://inhabitat.com/american-meteorological-society-finally-takes-a-stance-on-climate-change/print/">http://inhabitat.com/american-meteorological-society-finally-takes-a-stance-on-climate-change/print/</a></font></div>