It's Garbage Like This That Gives Social Science A Bad Name

From the WaPo: Female-named hurricanes kill more than male hurricanes because people don’t respect them, study finds

People don’t take hurricanes as seriously if they have a feminine name and the consequences are deadly, finds a new groundbreaking study.
Female-named storms have historically killed more because people neither consider them as risky nor take the same precautions, the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes.
Researchers at the University of Illinois and Arizona State University examined six decades of hurricane death rates according to gender, spanning  1950 and 2012.  Of the 47 most damaging hurricanes, the female-named hurricanes produced an average of 45 deaths compared to 23 deaths in male-named storms, or almost double the number of fatalities.

The lack of even rudimentary scientific methodology is staggering. For starters, comparing the effects of pre-1970 storms with post-1970 storms is difficult because of an important historical change, namely the introduction of satellites to accurately track hurricanes. This "study" blindly treats these two era the same. Well, they are not the same. Pre-1970 storms (oh, and all of this data was collected from their supporting data) averaged 35.4 deaths per storm. Post-1970 storms averaged 16.8 deaths per storm.

They cannot even make the Prima Facia case for their paper. Male names have only been in use since 1979. Since 1979 male named storms have produced an average of 17.9 deaths. Females storms have produced on average 15.8 deaths per storm.

Honestly, this paper took 15 minutes to completely destroy. How it could be published by the National Academy of Science is beyond me.

A Tale Of Two Polls

I mentioned last time out that the more Obama friendly polling assumes Democrats will enjoy similar advantages in enthusiasm compared to Republicans that they did in 2008. You can see this assumption built into some of the polling. For example, this recently released Time magazine poll which shows Obama up 5 points in Ohio and which many lefties are convinced means the election is over.

If you look at he internals of the poll you discover the pollsters have broken down the Ohio electorate as follows:

Democrat: 37%
Republican: 28%
Independent: 29%

(The numbers don't add up to 100% in the above because 40 something respondents answered something else.)

Now, lets compare this to the Suffolk University poll which found the race a dead heat.

Democrat: 39%
Republican: 35%
Independent: 27%

Very, very different samples, you will agree. So different, in fact, that the Time sample seems to be measuring an "Ohio" in a alternate universe (presumably one in which the sky is always fuchsia.) Indeed, no other poll listed by Real Clear Politics is claiming Independents outnumber Republicans in Ohio. However, that is the sample Time is using. When you look at the exit polling from 2008, when everything, and I mean everything was breaking in Obama's favor the partisan split between Democrat and Republican was only +8D. That's right, Time is telling us this election will break even more favorably for Obama than 2008 at +9D.

The way they achieve this "result" is by skewing the gender numbers. In the Time sample a full 65% of Democratic respondents are women, in the Republican sample its a 50/50 split (exactly.) The only way they make the whole thing not look ridiculous is by making the Independent sample skew male heavy at 57%.  As males as a group break heavily for Romney this gender imbalance has the effect of depressing Romney's vote total among Republicans and pumping up Obama's score among Democrats. Time has Romney winning among Republicans by 84% to 11%, while McCain won 92% to 8%.  Meanwhile they have Obama winning amongst Democrats 92% to 6%, while in 2008 those numbers were 89% to 11%.

Among Independents Romney is ahead 53% to 38%. In 2008 Independents went for Obama by a 52% to 44% margin.

Any way you want to slice it, it don't add up.

Demagoguery At Forbes: Education Edition

Here is a piece from someone claiming to be against "bad science."  Evidently, they don't include "bad social science" in that description:

Wow, no one saw this coming. The University of Florida announced this past week that it was dropping its computer science department, which will allow it to save about $1.4 million. The school is eliminating all funding for teaching assistants in computer science, cutting the graduate and research programs entirely, and moving the tattered remnants into other departments.

Let’s get this straight: in the midst of a technology revolution, with a shortage of engineers and computer scientists, UF decides to cut computer science completely?
save about $1.7 million

OK, Mr. Outraged, you tell me: How many majors was the UF computer science department producing? What was the quality of its graduate program? Will eliminating classes taught by grad student teaching assistants improve or worsen the quality of instruction?

The answers to the above questions are: Who knows; Who knows; and Probably improve. Without dealing with these fundamental questions there is no way to rationally assess the impact of this move by UF. Indeed, this entire piece is more about emotionalism than rational argumentation. Time for the non sequitar:

 Meanwhile, the athletic budget for the current year is , $97.7 million, an increase of more than $700,000 from last year.
$99 million

Ah, yes, the old bogeyman, college athletics. It's the eggheads favorite punching bag. Of course, as the writer had to ultimately admit, the athletic budget has nothing to do with the UF budget process for academics (oops), but, hey, it feels good to take the moral high ground against the dumb jocks. How enlightened.

But maybe there is a reason why this particular subject is being deemphasized at UF: (From the same freakin' article!!)

 Meanwhile, just two days ago, Florida governor Rick Scott approved the creation of a brand-new public university, Florida Polytechnic University, to be located near the city of Tampa.

Gee, could it be the state has decided not to have redundant departments, and instead will focus upon building the program at the Polytech? There is nothing special or magical about being the "flagship" campus that requires their program to be the prestige programs. Plenty of state university systems have other campuses which host the premiere programs in various subjects.

Maybe this is what is going on. Maybe it is not. From this Forbes article it is impossible to know. Then again, I think that maybe the point of this piece, i.e. to leave its reader uninformed but emotionally engaged. If that isn't demagoguery then nothing is.

Shocker: Social Science Should Be Held To Scientific Standards

From Hot Air: WaPo/ABC ends sample transparency in national polling

The Washington Post and ABC News has a new national poll out today. It purports to show that Barack Obama has a 50% approval rating and that he would beat Mitt Romney in a head-to-head matchup. And heck, that might even be true, except for a couple of problems. First, this is a poll of general population adults rather than registered or likely voters, so it’s not even a proper polling type for the predictive outcome they claim.

More importantly, though, the poll series has dropped its reporting of partisan identification within their samples. It’s the second time that the poll has not included the D/R/I split in its sample report, and now it looks as though this will be policy from this point forward. Since this is a poll series that has handed double-digit partisan advantages to Democrats in the past (for instance, this poll from April 2011 where the sample only had 22% Republicans), it’s not enough to just hear “trust us” on sample integrity from the Washington Post or ABC.

This critique is entirely correct. I teach social science methods for a living, and I tell my charges if an opinion poll does not come clean about its methodology (including the breakdown of party ID) you have to throw it out as being untrustworthy. In fact, the only reason not to give this basic information is you have something to hide.

This Washington Post/ABC poll is neither social science nor journalism. It's advocacy.

Gee, Maybe Its Because Marx Was Wrong

It amazes me how dominant an idea economic determinism is given that it is so obviously wrong: Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts

The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.

Someone with a scientific bent to their mind would probably reach the conclusion that the economically deterministic assumptions underlying such a belief must be faulty.

But who are you going to believe, Karl Marx or your lying eyes?

When In Doubt, Make It Up

Another day, another crisis: Droughts, Floods and Food

We’re in the midst of a global food crisis — the second in three years. World food prices hit a record in January, driven by huge increases in the prices of wheat, corn, sugar and oils. These soaring prices have had only a modest effect on U.S. inflation, which is still low by historical standards, but they’re having a brutal impact on the world’s poor, who spend much if not most of their income on basic foodstuffs.

Maybe this wouldn't be the best time to mention another contributing factor, such as green policies which increase the cost of electricity which especially hurt the poor. Evidently, when pain is inflicted upon the poor by the decisions and actions of folks like Paul Krugman that is not a crisis. It's tough love. Otherwise, its a crisis.

The consequences of this food crisis go far beyond economics. After all, the big question about uprisings against corrupt and oppressive regimes in the Middle East isn’t so much why they’re happening as why they’re happening now. And there’s little question that sky-high food prices have been an important trigger for popular rage.

Really? For some reason this "important trigger" seems to have escaped the people actually protesting in places like Tunisia. Indeed, the inflation rate in Tunisia for was only 3.5-4.5% which ranks only 120th in the world in terms of inflation. So, where exactly is this supposed source for "food rioting"? When one looks at the photographs of the protests in Tunisia one does not see people complaining about a lack of food. They are complaining about politics.





In fact, it was the Tunisian regime which attempted to make this all about food prices, and that was an approach rejected by the Tunisian people:

Protesters chanted slogans against President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, a day after he went on TV to promise lower food prices and new freedoms for Tunisians. Demonstrators shouted "Ben Ali, out!" and "Ben Ali, assassin!" One poster read "We won't forget," a reference to the rioters killed, many by police bullets.

Pent-up anger at unemployment and at a leadership many see as controlling and corrupt has exploded into protests and clashes with police over the past few weeks. The official death toll in the riots is 23, but that figure has not been updated in days. Opposition leaders put the figure at three times that. [ed. emphasis added]

It was, in actuality, the political success of the protests in Tunisia which were the triggers of the protest movements in other repressive regimes in the area.

So, where does this myth of food riots come from? From the global warming cabal, where else?

Krugman links to this piece from "Climate Progress" (gee, with a name like that you simply HAVE to trust their objectivity, right?):

Expert consensus grows on contribution of record high food prices to Middle East unrest

Uh oh. It's time for another "consensus," eh? OK, so who are your "experts" Climate Progress?

"Experts" linked in the story include:

Ben Grossman-Cohen, press officer for Oxfam. (enough said.)

Derek Thompson of The Atlantic who writes on economics, and actually had this to say about Egypt:

Blame President Hosni Mubarak, who has shut his country off from the global economy. As Zachary Karabell reports in the Wall Street journal, the country ranks 137 in the world in per-capita income (behind Tonga, ahead of Kirbati). The government has failed to capitalize on $2 billion in annual U.S. aid, $5 billion in Suez Canal dues and $10 billion in tourism, which flourishes despite, not because of, the country's infrastructure.

Egypt's brand of socialism strangles the private sector in at least two significant ways. First, most investment projects must be reviewed by the government and with public ownerships dominating finance, that makes it especially difficult for entrepreneurs to get access to funding. Second, corruption is rank. Egypt ranks 111th out of 180 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2009, according to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedoms, and "bribery of low-level civil servants seems to be a part of daily life."

So, this expert, doesn't blame the "acute shock" of the rise in foodstuffs. He blames Mubarak's brand of crony socialism. Thomson doesn't blame floods; he blames corrupt political policies.

Another expert cited by Climate Progess is economist Nouriel Roubini who said...

Rising prices are "leading to riots, demonstrations and political instability," New York University economics professor Nouriel Roubini said during a panel discussion. "It's really something that can topple regimes, as we have seen in the Middle East."

However, a look at Prof. Roubini's vita shows no published work on the question of food/commodity prices and political instability. Now, Roubini may have a gut feeling on the matter, and his experience generally on issues of political economy may give his gut feelings a little more weight than some others, that is hardly the basis to declare "consensus" on the matter.

The last "expert" Climate Progress invokes to create "consensus" is...wait for it... themselves!

So, creating consensus seems to be a little like Napoleon crowning himself emperor. (It's probably good work if you can get it.)

But here is the crux of Krugman's lying:

While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.

This is simply wrong scientifically. There is no evidence conecting these weather events to climate change. None. Oh, there is plenty of speculation on the part of economists, journalists, press officers, and partisan hacks of all stripes, but there is no proof. There is no evidence that we are witnessing extreme weather events that are more servere or which occur more often than in the past.

Sadly, a complete lack of evidence is never enough to deter the truly fevered.

Krugman continued:

As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change.

Typical Krugman. "You can't do X, but I'm gonna do it anyway."

Until the warmists tell us what weather wouldn't "be expected" by their theory (i.e. what would count as falsifying their hypothesis), there is no reason to pay attention to them. For them, every possible occurrence is compatible with their theory, which is the same thing as saying their theory is meaningless.



ADDING:



Noel Sheppard points to the following graph charting wheat prices:


Commenting on this graph Roger Pielke Jr. states:

Good luck disentangling a long-term climate signal in the long-term data, which shows a significant decline in grain prices, much less attributing such a signal to a particular cause. Efforts to link short-term wiggles to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions go well beyond the canons of empirical science, to use a polite euphemism from The Climate Fix.

Whatever Krugman is on about, it isn't science.

Gleaned from Memeorandum.

I Refuse To Believe Most Political Scientists Are This Stupid...[UPDATED]

...but when prominent ones publish such nonsense I begin to doubt that belief:

Since 2004, the number of suicide attacks—whether within a country or transnational—has grown with shocking speed. Through a close analysis of suicide campaigns by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Israel, Chechnya, and Sri Lanka, the authors provide powerful new evidence that, contrary to popular and dangerously mistaken belief, only a tiny minority of these attacks are motivated solely by religion. Instead, the root cause is foreign military occupation, which triggers secular and religious people alike to carry out suicide attacks.

So, here we have a hypothesis: military occupation causes suicide attacks.

So where have the United States been "occupiers" since 1900?

PHILIPPINES
CUBA
PUERTO RICO
GUAM
NICARAGUA
SAMOA
HAWAII
PANAMA
HONDURAS
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
MEXICO
HAITI
RUSSIA
GUATEMALA
EL SALVADOR
GERMANY
KOREA
JAPAN
VIETNAM

How many of these occupations resulted in suicide attacks against civilian populations? The answer seems to be zero.

Of course, there were other occupations. I wonder how those might be different?

Wikipedia lists the following countries has having experienced suicide attacks:

Afghanistan
Algeria
Egypt
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Lebanon
Pakistan
Russia (Chechnya)
Sri Lanka
United States (9/11 attacks)

Now, Dr. Papes expects you to believe military occupation is the dominant similarity in the above list.

So, what is it that causes occupations in countries that just so happen to be Islamic to spawn suicide attacks, when occupations in the non-Islamic countries did not generate such attacks? Obviously, the prima facie case for Dr. Papes "hypothesis" is simply lacking.

Like I said, nonsense. Very stupid nonsense.

This is what happens when someone allows their ideological attachments to overwhelm reality, honesty and common sense.

UPDATE:

Proving that the modern Left is almost entirely brain-dead, the usual suspects buy this crapola hook, line and sinker.

Given their ability to ignore evidence to keep their ideological preferences unchallenged, I believe it is fair to label the Lefties as positively anti-intellectual.

Andrew Sullivan Doesn't Understand Polling Data *sigh*

Really, this is unacceptable in a political journalist: Health Reform Gaining

As this poll of polls shows, if Obama keeps up his performances like yesterday and campaigns like this day after day after day, the first poll - from YouGov/The Economist - showing a clear 53- 47 majority in favor of his reform will become a harbinger of the future.

Got that? A "clear majority," so says Sullivan. The trouble is when you actually look at the poll you discover it has an error term of +/- 3.6%, which means that the poll numbers of 53% and 47% are not statistically different from one another. Oops.

Well, if you cannot say Obama's plan has a majority backing it, you can at least say it is as popular as not, right? Well, yes and no. When you look at the data you discover that support for the plan is "soft." Of those people asked, only 17% of respondents said they "Strongly Support" the plan. 32% "Strongly Oppose" Obama's scheme. What support the Obama plan has is far shakier than the opposition.

Well, maybe the plan is increasing in support from where it had been polling? That would be something we measure with a tracking poll. Sadly, the YouGov poll was not tracking the Obama health plan.

Gallup, on the other hand, has been doing tracking polls on the question, and, Lo! and Behold!, they too released results today. (Sully seems to have missed this tracking poll. Maybe he has never heard of Gallup.)

March 2010 - Support for Obama Plan

For: 45%
Against: 48%

January 2010 - Support for Obama Plan

For: 49%
Against: 46%

The +/- on the Gallup polls is 4 points, which means the numbers are essentially and statistically unchanged.

Really, none of this is very difficult to understand. So why can't Sullivan understand it?

State Funded Research Is Not "Independent" Research

There is a very interesting article up on Sp!ked about public health research that everyone interested in the connection between scientific research and public policy should go and read: A bleary-eyed attitude to alcohol research

[T]here is the claim, explicit in the [British Medical Journal] Lobby Watch article, that researchers funded by the UK government are objective in the debate over alcohol advertising policy because they are ‘independent’, whereas researchers funded by the alcohol industry are not. Second, there is the claim that it is ‘established’ that alcohol advertising ‘encourages young people to drink alcohol sooner and in greater quantities’.

The effect of these two claims is to suggest to the public and policymakers that, first, the debate over the effects of alcohol advertising is over and, second, only those people funded by the alcohol industry question this reality.

Is this true? The idea that people whose research is funded by the taxpayer are independent, and therefore objective in their findings and policy prescriptions, is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. Public Choice theory explains that the interests of those who claim to represent the public are themselves conflicted and self-serving, and certainly neither independent nor objective.

This is most assuredly correct, and has far reaching implications for a variety of important research areas including climate science. Thus the IPCC has no problem citing as authorities groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, but would never be caught dead citing work by Cato or AEI. This is an intellectually untenable position, as the Sp!iked piece makes clear:

To simply reduce research to a question of funding avoids the hard question of the quality of the research itself. Rather than evaluating each piece of research on its individual merits, evidence which doesn’t fit what the public health community wants to hear is simply dismissed or ignored on the grounds that it is done and funded by the wrong people.

Public policy should not be decided based largely upon the perceived moral qualities of this or that researcher. It should be based upon the quality of the work itself.

End of story.

Environmental Determinism Makes A Comeback

Really, what passes for "science" these days is hysterical. From the BBC:
Climate 'is a major cause' of conflict in Africa

Climate has been a major driver of armed conflict in Africa, research shows - and future warming is likely to increase the number of deaths from war.

US researchers found that across the continent, conflict was about 50% more likely in unusually warm years.

Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), they suggest strife arises when the food supply is scarce in warm conditions.

Climatic factors have been cited as a reason for several recent conflicts.

Problem is this paper does nothing of the sort. The "Supporting Information" material of the report makes this abundantly clear:

We denote civil war in country i in year t as warit. All
country-year observations with a civil war in progress are coded
as 1s, and other observations are coded as 0s. The PRIO data
extend from 1946 to 2006, but because of the limited temporal
availability of some climate data products (discussed below), and
because the political processes underlying conflict were likely
changing rapidly before 1980 as increasing numbers of African
countries gained independence, we focus our analysis on the
1981–2002 period.

Got that? Only 20 years are looked at in this study. Total. Given that no link between (warning: nonsense term) "climate change" could possibly be established over a mere 20 years worth of data, why was this "study" even written? How could it possibly be published? It would be as if I wrote a paper claiming to be based upon Boyle's Law without ever discussing gas under pressure. It's nonsense pure and simple.

This objection doesn't even take into account the confounding variables rife in any such attempt to subject human behavior to environmental determinism, an idea real scientists tossed in the trash generations ago. Think of all the racist nonsense about the industriousness of cool climate "Nordic races" used to perpetuate the myth of white superiority in previous centuries. Now, compare those beliefs with this study focusing on the propensity of Africans to violence based upon their warm climate.

Really, we are comfortable going there nowadays?

But, hey, I've got a competeing theory. My theory says a warming climate will lessen the potential for conflict. Using North America as my test subject, and a more climatically friendly time period of 200 years, I will divide history into two segments; 1801-1900 & 1901-2000.

Using the "Wars of the World" timeline here are the North American conflicts:

1801-1900 (Cool Period)

1. Mexian War of Independence 1810-23
2. US Occupation of West Florida 1810
3. Tecumseh's War 1811
4. War of 1812
5. Creek War 1813-14
6. Fort Mims Massacre 1813
7. Seven Oaks Massacre 1816
8. First Seminole War 1817-18
9. Vesy's Rebellion 1822
10. Yaqui Uprising: Mexico 1825-27
11. UPCA Civil War 1826-29
12. Mexican Conservative Revolt 1827
13. Mexican-Spanish War 1829
14. Turner's Rebellion 1831
15. Black Hawk's War 1832
16. Indian Stream "War" 1835
17. Murrel's Rebellion 1835
18. Second Seminole War 1835-43
19. Texan Independence War 1835-36
20. Papineau's Rebellion 1837
21. Mackenzie's Rebellion 1837
22. Aroostook War 1838-39
23. Buckshot War 1838
24. Pastry War 1838
25. Comanche-Texan Border War 1840
26. Dorr's Rebellion in Rhode Island 1842
27. Texan "Archive War" 1842
28. Bear Flag Revolt in California 1846
29. Mexican-American War 1846-48
30. Yucatan Caste War 1847-55
31. Whitman Massacre 1847
32. Cayuse War 1848-55
33. Walker's Invasion: Mexico 1853-54
34. Third Seminole War 1855-58
35. Rogue River Wars 1855-6
36. Wakarusa War 1855
37. Yakima War 1855-8
38. Pottawatomie Massacre 1856
39. Spirit Lake Massacre 1857
40. Mountain Meadows Massacre 1857
41. Utah War 1857-8
42. Mexican Reformation War 1858-67
43. Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry 1859
44. Apache and Navaho War 1860-5
45. American Civil War 1861-65
46. Franco-Mexican War 1862-67
47. Sioux War 1862-64
48. Sand Creek Massacre 1864
49. Saint Albans Raid 1864
50. Sioux War 1865-68
51. Fetterman Massacre 1866
52. Fenian Raiders 1866-70
53. Wagon Box Fight 1867
54. Red River Rebellion 1869-70
55. Blood River Massacre in Montana 1870
56. Camp Grant Massacre 1871
57. Apache War 1871-73
58. Red River Indian War 1874-75
59. Kiowa War 1874
60. Yaqui & Mayan Uprising in Mexico 1875-98
61. Apache War 1876-83
62. Mexican Coup 1876
63. Sioux War 1876-77
64. Cheyenne War 1878
65. Victorio's Apache Raiding 1879
66. Apache War 1885-6
67. Northwest Rebellion in Canada 1885
68. Sioux War 1890-91

1901-2000 (Warm Period)

1. Assassination of McKinley 1901
2. Black Patch War 1904-9
3. Mexican Civil War 1911-1914
4. Mexican Revolt 1914-15
5. Poncho Villa's Raids 1916-17
6. Preparedness Day Bombing in America 1916
7. Mexican Civil War 1920
8. Mexican Catholic Revolt 1927-29
9. "Bonus Marchers" Intervention 1932
10. Mexican Conservative Revolt 1936
11. Internment of Japanese-Americans 1942-45
12. Attack on Blair House 1950
13. Black Panthers in America 1966-73
14. Chiapas Rebellion: Mexico 1994
15. EPR Revolt Mexico 1996

Thus, I'll argue that a warming climate has resulted in a 78% reduction in armed conflicts compared to cooler eras.

See how idiotic it is?

Attack Of The Weathermen

The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society conducted a survey of broadcast meteorologists on arious aspects of climate change (still a stupid term). The results were interesting to say the least.

Statement: "Respond to this IPCC conclusion: 'Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.'"

Strongly Agree: 8%
Agree: 16%
Neutral: 25%
Disagree: 24%
Strongly Disagree: 26%

Statement: "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet."

Strongly Agree: 3%
Agree: 16%
Neutral: 20%
Disagree: 37%
Strongly Disagree: 25%

Statement: "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought."

Strongly Agree: 1%
Agree: 18%
Neutral: 29%
Disagree: 36%
Strongly Disagree: 16%

Statement: "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for local weather patterns."

Strongly Agree: 0%
Agree: 14%
Neutral: 25%
Disagree: 38%
Strongly Disagree: 24%

Question: "Respond to one TV weathercaster’s quote saying: 'Global warming is a scam.'"

Strongly Agree: 10%
Agree: 19%
Neutral: 26%
Disagree: 23%
Strongly Disagree: 22%

In many ways the last response is the most startling as only 45% of surveyed broadcast meteorologists felt comfortable saying Global Warming isn't an outright scam.

I have to say I see my own opinions mirrored by the majority view of these meteorologists.

Roger Pielke Sr. notes the response of the American Meterological Society has been to commision a "directed" interview survey which, I can already tell you before it has even taken place, will "contradict" the BAMS survey. How do I know that? Well, just look at the invitation:

I write to invite you to participate in a research study. This research is being conducted to understand how TV meteorologists educate their audiences about climate change. If you agree to participate, we will schedule an in-person or telephone interview with you. The interview will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. After the interview, we will ask you to help us access examples of educational materials (or broadcasts) that you have used to educate audiences about climate change.

How is this directed in any way at the 50% of meteorologists who wouldn't have been focusing on AGW as they don't think it is happening? The answer is, it isn't. They will get predominately those who have "examples of educational materials (or broadcasts)" to give the researchers. Why is that? Well, because if you give them such material you also agree to the following:

Because we would like to collect and share examples (on a website we will create) of your efforts to educate audiences about climate change, we are requesting that you participate as an identified participant. We will ask your permission before posting anything you have said, or any educational material materials you have given us, on our website. If you agree to the posting, we will credit you as the source by listing your full name and your current place of employment.

You can just imagine how skeptics will be treated once they can be identified by name and place of employment. This is the reason why we have anonymous polling in the first place, so that people can give their honest opinions without fear of negative consequences.

Oh, you can choose to remain anonymous, only then "...we will not post any materials you give us on our website."

Well, that is one way to get the results you are looking for.