During his January 31 broadcast, Newsradio 850 KOA host Mike Rosen attempted to discredit a recently released report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) regarding alleged government interference in global warming research by falsely asserting that UCS downplayed the low response rate to its survey of climate scientists. In fact, UCS disclosed the survey rate on the first page of its report. Rosen also suggested that the UCS survey's “response rate of 19 percent” is well below the government standard, which “should raise some flags.” However, the report itself stated that the survey response rate was in line with similar surveys and was “not intended to be representative of the more than 1,600 climate scientists” it surveyed.

The UCS/GAP report, titled “Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science,” was based not only on the survey of more than 1,600 climate scientists, but also on “40 in-depth interviews with federal climate scientists and other officials”; an analysis of “thousands of pages of government documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)”; and “inside sources, regarding agency media policies and congressional communications.”

Rosen claimed that the UCS/GAP report revealed its survey response rate “way back on page 16.” Although page 16 does include the survey's response rate, the report first discloses the rate in the Executive Summary on page 1:

UCS mailed a questionnaire to more than 1,600 climate scientists at seven federal agencies to gauge the extent to which politics was playing a role in scientists' research. Surveys were also sent to scientists at the independent (non-federal) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to serve as a comparison with the experience of federal scientists. About 19 percent of all scientists responded (279 from federal agencies and 29 from NCAR).

Rosen further questioned the report's response rate, saying, “Now, that should raise some flags. A response rate of only 19 percent?” He then read a weblog entry by Iain Murray, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, who claimed that the UCS “report is undeniably Junk Science” because it “based [its] assertions of political interference on ... a response rate of just 19 percent.” According to Murray, "[Office of Management and Budget] guidelines clearly state that a response rate of less than 80 percent to a survey requires an investigation of potential biases and an even closer investigation for a response rate lower than 70 percent." He added, “A response rate this low is clearly vulnerable to the charge of a self-selecting sample, perhaps those with an axe to grind against their bosses, the politically motivated, and so on. In short, it provides all sorts of legitimate reasons to dismiss the survey as utterly unrepresentative. The fact that these so-called scientists went ahead regardless exposes them ... for the partisan media manipulators that they are.”

However, as the UCS/GAP report states in its “frequently asked questions” section, “The response rate (19%) was consistent with response rates for other surveys of this kind.” In addition, the report declared that "[t]he survey results are not intended to be representative of the more than 1,600 climate scientists. However, we do know from this survey that large numbers of scientists have personally experienced or perceived barriers to communicating about their work. This number should be zero."

Despite the UCS/GAP report's clear statement that the survey was not intended to be representative, Rosen attempted to discredit its findings according to standards for representative, statistical surveys. Likewise, the reference to the Office of Management and Budget's guidelines for surveys is misleading because the UCS/GAP survey was not conducted for statistical purposes. As the UCS/GAP report explicitly stated, the survey was not intended to be representative of all climate scientists: “Unless otherwise stated, percentages and numbers stated in this report reflect only the responses from the 279 federal agency scientists.” The report further noted that “political interference has extended beyond just a few leading scientists to affect hundreds of federal climate researchers,” but it did not statistically estimate a percentage of affected climate scientists in general.

Later in the broadcast, Rosen interviewed anthropogenic global warming skeptic Lee Gerhard, a geologist whom Rosen identified as someone who “once operated an independent petroleum exploration company” and “co-chaired the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, their Climate Change Issues Committee.” During the interview, Gerhard, who is currently the principal geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey, repeated a number of global warming falsehoods.

For example, Gerhard claimed that "[t]he testing that we've done suggests that humans are not the culprit, that solar is the culprit, at least on the up-to-thousand-year change." However, as Colorado Media Matters noted, in examining whether changes in solar activity might be responsible for recent warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found a substantial “rise in solar forcing during the early decades of the 20th century,” but not in later decades, directly contradicting Gerhard's claim that "[t]here is no question that solar activity today is the highest level it has been since we have started being able to measure that." Also, according to the IPCC, “Such a forcing history is unlikely to explain the recent acceleration in surface warming, even if amplified by some unknown feedback mechanism.”

As Media Matters for America noted, a 2004 study conducted by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research similarly concluded that solar activity contributed little to the dramatic warming over the last few decades. According to a press release, the study concluded that “the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years” and “the Earth's temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.”

Finally, Gerhard's claim that “the arguments that greenhouse gases have caused past climate changes have gone away as we have shown one by one by one that that has not happened,” does not reflect the “scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming,” affirmed by a June 22, 2006, National Academy of Sciences report.

From the January 31 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: So, Henry Waxman, the Democrat from California -- and not just a liberal, but a mega-liberal -- he's chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. And he along with Democrats in the Senate have been holding hearings on climate change. In the Senate, we had a procession of Democrats, including a whole gaggle of prospective candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, present themselves before the Senate committee trying to outdo each other in their concern for greenhouse gas control and global warming. You heard from John McCain, and Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, and others. That was in the Senate. In the House, Waxman, among other things, featured this survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is a very liberal group that takes predictably liberal positions on everything from defense to foreign policy to climate change to any number of other environmental issues. Iain Murray from National Review Online talked about this survey that the Union of Concerned Scientists has been shopping around town. And it was received very favorably by Henry Waxman and his committee yesterday in the House.

Here's what Iain Murray has to say:

We're going to hear a lot about the new Union of Concerned Scientists report on the so-called “Republican war on science” that was unveiled at today's hearing chaired by Henry Waxman.

I've got a story here from the Houston Chronicle on this as well. It's an Associated Press story by Joseph Hebert. Headline: Lawmakers hear of interference in global warming science; presidential hopefuls speak out. You'll find this story reproduced in the Rocky Mountain News today. Dateline: Washington.

Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress. The hearing focused on allegations that White House officials for years have micromanaged the government's climate programs and have closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.

As if we all haven't been deluged by doomsday reports of global warming from every possible quarter. Now we're -- we're being told that the government is suppressing this. Now, this administration is entitled to have its own policy regarding climate change and global warming, and environmental policies to respond to that. And, of course, as every administration has its own policy, there will always be dissenters within an administration; especially so when there's a Republican administration because bureaucrats tend to be liberal. So it's no surprise that so-called whistleblowers will be making claims. Whether those claims are founded or not is a problematic question.

So, the UCS conducted this survey -- the Union of Concerned Scientists. Now, we went to their Web page and I got their report, and way back on page 16 in their report, I have the following item. It says, “308 surveys were completed and returned to the Union of Concerned Scientists -- 279 from federal agencies, and 29 from NCAR”-- that's, what, the National Center for Atmospheric Research -- “for a response rate of 19 percent.” Hmm. Now, that should raise some flags. A response rate of only 19 percent?

Here's how Iain Murray handles that:

What you won't hear is that the Union of Concerned Scientists' report is undeniably Junk Science, a term I try to avoid but completely support in this case. The Union of Concerned Scientists mailed out over 16 hundred survey forms to climate scientists and based their assertions of political interference on the 279 that got returned. That's a response rate of just 19 percent. Office of Management and Budget guidelines clearly state that a response rate of less than 80 percent to a survey requires an investigation of potential biases and an even closer investigation for a response rate lower than 70 percent.

Keep in mind, this was a response rate under 20 percent.

A response rate this low is clearly vulnerable to the charge of a self-selecting sample, perhaps those with an axe to grind against their bosses, the politically motivated, and so on. In short, it provides all sorts of legitimate reasons to dismiss the survey as utterly unrepresentative. The fact that these so-called scientists went ahead regardless exposes them -- he's talking about the people at the Union of Concerned Scientists -- exposes them for the partisan media manipulators that they are.

If I were to receive a survey from the Union of Concerned Scientists, I'd say, “Union of Concerned Scientists,” I'd scoff, and I'd throw it in the trash. Presumably there were some people, some scientists, who received this and responded exactly the same way. Others perhaps thought that the -- the questions -- the questions resonated of conspiracy-theory approach that they thought was absurd and tossed it as well. Only 19 percent responded. And just as most people who write letters to editors at newspapers are people with an ax to grind, are people who are motivated to take the time to write a letter because they're angry about something, frequently because they disagree with another letter to the editor or a column that they've written -- or that, excuse me, a column that they've read. So, people who are -- who are negatively oriented are the ones who tend to respond to surveys like this. And that's why only a response rate of 19 percent is a clear indication that this can't be taken as representative of the sample of 16 hundred who were the recipients of these survey forms.

[...]

ROSEN: Lee, thanks for joining us this morning.

GERHARD: I'm pleased to be here, Mike.

ROSEN: I've got your bio in front of me. Why don't you give people an -- some indication as to what your credentials are, what your expertise is, both academic and from the standpoint of career experience. And we should also note right up front that you once operated an independent petroleum exploration company. And you've also co-chaired the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, their Climate Change Issues Committee. So there are some who will immediately disqualify your opinions because they'll say, “Well, you're just promoting the interests of big oil.”

GERHARD: Well, you know, we keep facing issues like that. But let me just start out by saying that most of my career has been spent in public service. Before moving here to Lawrence, Kansas, as state geologist and director of the geological survey, I was Getty professor of geological engineering at Colorado School of Mines. I've been a lot of places, done a lot of things since I graduated from graduate school, but fundamentally, most of my career has been in public service. I had the opportunity also in public service to acquire a background in meteorology. I really can't talk much about it 'cause it was classified when I did it and, as far as I know, it's still classified today.

[...]

GERHARD: The arguments that are advanced by most people are evidence that it is warming. They are not evidence of what is causing warming. There is no question that solar activity today is the highest level it has been since we have started being able to measure that. Now, there's an incredible amount of data that show that. The Russians have been working very hard on this. At the same time, most of the argument you hear -- “Well it's warming; there's ice melting.” Yes. At the -- but if you look at Antarctica -- Antarctica, the major part of the Antarctic continent is cooling, and there's snow accumulating, and it more than overbalances what we're losing off the Ross Ice Shelf. And so, actually, the latest literature I've read on that suggests that sea level would go down by about a millimeter every year or so, based simply on what's happening in the Antarctic. And the Arctic, as I read the literature, there is warming and melting on the U.S. side and Canadian side; on the Siberian side it's cooler. As time has gone on in this debate, the arguments that greenhouse gases have caused past climate changes have gone away as we have shown one by one by one that that has not happened. And most of the argument I get today is, “Well, in the last 40 years ...” Well, when you're down to 40 years, you're talking about weather, not about climate.

[...]

GERHARD: The testing that we've done suggests that humans are not the culprit, that solar is the culprit, at least on the up-to-thousand-year change. But that doesn't mean it's a final answer. Science has to operate by continuing, challenging, and testing. When those computer models are tested they cannot replicate past climates, therefore I can't see them projecting future climates.

ROSEN: Some of those models have various estimates in a -- within a range from two degrees warming over the next hundred years to more than 10 degrees warming. That's quite a range.

GERHARD: Well, it all depends on the assumptions you make. Remember, models are created by human beings, and each -- as each modeler creates the equations that go into the model, they put different values into those equations and different relationships. It's very rare that one gets an opportunity to get in and see what those assumptions in those data sets are.