Meteorologists are (rightly) skeptical on CAGW

Updated on 6/19/11
Quoting Vol. 90, Issue 10 (October, 2009) of
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
(in an article clearly written by a CAGW propagandist):

“The question of whether John Coleman is an isolated skeptic or represents a larger community of skeptical TV weathercasters was one of several research motivations for a recent national survey of AMS weathercasters sponsored by the National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF).”

Click the image for the most relevant finding:

Click here for the BAMS article.
Click here for more key findings & commentary.
Click here to further refute the “scientific consensus” bunk.
Click here & expose the “leader” of the IPCC.
Click here for some basic climate change science.
This Wikipedia page is oft cited by alarmists as evidence of a mythical consensus among scientists which is ostensibly fully supportive of the IPCC and calls for governments to regulate CO2. That page includes a section which many falsely construe as evidence that American meteorologists are part of this mythical “consensus”. The Wikipedia page cites this statement from the AMS asserting that “[t]he changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities”. However, the polling data cited in this post clearly and directly demonstrates that only 24% of meteorologists polled share that view!

I strongly suspect that if ANY of the cited organizations were to conduct a comprehensive poll of all their members, they would find very little agreement with their “official” statements. And, that is precisely why -- without exception -- the “leadership” of these organizations has NOT conducted ANY such polling of their members (despite Dr. Bill Gray having openly challenged the AMS to “conduct a survey of its members”).

Three more points:

1) The evidence demonstrates that Leftists have been very actively slanting Wikipedia information dealing with Climate Change. And, that is precisely why you will never see this polling data in this Wikipedia section.

2) There is NO uniformity in the statements offered by various organizations. They are all over the map.

3) The TINY MINORITY of scientists who agree with the IPCC and calls for government to regulate CO2, are the ones who are mostly likely to directly profit (at tax payer expense) from the alarmism and/or the regulations.