Pew Poll: global warming dead last, down from last year

It seems that the public just doesn’t share the worry some of the activists have.

From the Pew Research Center

Global Warming and the Environment

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey.

Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public’s list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.

click for a larger image

See the complete report at the Pew Research Center

h/t to Leif Svalgaard

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Opinion, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

157 Responses to Pew Poll: global warming dead last, down from last year

  1. Steve Goddard says:

    Some people are worried about the lack of global warming.

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all
    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?

  2. Mauibrad says:

    Scott Brown ran his campaign on the Top 3 plus health care.

  3. Tom Fuller says:

    More interesting is the decline (-11) in those concerned with dealing with America’s energy problems. Unemployment trumps all. Bill Clinton said it best–ITES…

  4. Dave F says:

    Wow. Glad to see helping the poor beats it, but why are there separate categories for health care and health insurance? Aren’t they the same thing?

    I know you didn’t write the poll, just sayin’.

  5. Chris in Tropical Australia says:

    All that has to be done is to dismantle the IPCC, bury it, and make sure nothing happens like this again.

  6. David says:

    Amazing how easily your priorities shift when you can’t pay the heating bill due to record cold.

  7. rbateman says:

    Economy and Jobs are a big deal.
    Global Warming is what you get when you back up against the heater on a cold morning.

  8. Phillip Bratby says:

    No surprise here. The public is gradually realising what has been going on and more and more people are seeing through the AGW scam.

    BTW What’s happpened to the WEBLOG awards?

  9. James F. Evans says:

    We, the people have spoken.

  10. toyotawhizguy says:

    It’s good to see that global warming finished dead last on the poll. Perhaps for the next Pew poll they will replace “Global Warming” with “Global Warming Hoax”. That issue may score rather high on the list of priorities the next time around.
    The IPCC should be declared an international terrorist organization, thus making it illegal for funds to flow to them from the USA.

  11. tokyoboy says:

    I don’t figure out the meaning of “Lobbyists”, the third from bottom.
    The US people are scared by lobbyists, or wish an increase in the number of lobbyists??

  12. Martin Brumby says:

    Apologies. A bit OT but interesting.
    After contacting Phil Willis – Chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee on 24 Jan. (Posted under Quote of the Week #27)
    Martin Brumby (05:06:06) :

    I received a speedy reply yesterday (25 Jan) saying:-

    “Dear Mr Brumby,

    “Thankyou for your email, which I have passed onto the Science and Technology Select Committee clerks. I assure you that when we are considering the emails leaked from UEA we will take your submission into consideration.

    “I’d also like to add that I accept that my use of the phrase ‘Climate Deniers’ was a mistake, and I shall endeavour not to use it in the future. I apologise for any offence caused by my error, although I assure you that none was intended.

    “Yours Sincerely,

    Phil Willis MP”

    A reasonable reply, I think. Note that the Chairman of the Committee who is investigating the UEA emails refers unambiguously to “emails leaked from UEA”.

    Not a hacker in sight….

  13. AlanG says:

    It’s always the ‘economy stupid’, especially considering the shocking rise in unemployment in the US. Who cares about carbon mumbo jumbo when they’ve got no money to buy carbon? OT but I love this quote: Global warming is sub-prime science, sub-prime economics, and sub-prime politics, and it could well go down with the sub-prime mortgage.” (Philip Stott, September 21)

  14. Martin Brumby says:

    It would have been interesting if they had included an option:-

    “Dealing with the global warming scam”

    That might have done better!

  15. Michael says:

    I don’t know why Terrorism is on the list. Terrorism is a tactic. It’s an intangible. You cant touch it and you cant put your finger on it because it’s an intangible concept. Oh well, one brainwashing event at a time.

  16. Dave F says:

    tokyoboy (23:18:53) :

    Usually when you see something like this in a poll ‘What should X Administration be doing?’, there is an assumption that simply putting ‘lobbyist’ will imply the actual meaning of ‘Restraint of the act of lobbying’. If you are indeed from Tokyo, maybe this is a Western media thing(?), but it could also be that the graph is built on data explained in the reported poll results, which would further delve into the meaning behind each category listed in the graph.

    I am still not understanding the rationale for separating ‘health care’ and ‘health insurance’ if it makes you feel any better. :-)

  17. jorgekafkazar says:

    Obviously, enough hasn’t been spent on Warmist propaganda, yet. Obama will add 44% to 28%, get 72%, and open the floodgates. “The people have spoken; the science is settled. Let’s spend another billion or two. Where do I bow?”

    DaveF: If you want people to take you seriously, I’d suggest not adding “Just sayin'” to the end of all your comments:

    http://vimeo.com/3829682

  18. K says:

    All those cool AGW ads on cable: W A S T E D !!!!

  19. Chris says:

    Has anyone fed the historical AGW poll results into Mann’s hockey stick formula / system to see the results yet ?

  20. Gerard says:

    The environment should be a lot higher, but I’m happy with global warming on the last place!

  21. wes george says:

    Our political and (so-called) intellectual elites believe that the common people are ignorant fools. See anything by Joe Klein, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman or the White House staff, just to name a few. The Pew Poll shows that Americans are actually rather well clued into the real world in spite of the constant barrage of propaganda they ingest daily from the MSM.

    These same elites believe the weak point of democracy is that the common people’s vote counts as much as, say, Al Gore’s. Therefore it is fair to cheat the system a bit, in order to make sure hoi polloi gets what is best for them as determined by those so much wiser and with so much more vested interests.

    Every morning we should wake up, kiss the sky and be grateful for the free market of ideas which the Internet has made impossible to suppress, for without it George Orwell’s dystopian visions of the future would be well upon us.

  22. Mike D. says:

    Moral decline rates a 45. Another decline that’s tough to hide.

  23. tallbloke says:

    It’s good to see that while concern about global warming has dropped two points, concern about protecting the environment has risen three points.

    I was worried that people would throw the environmental baby out with the co2 driven warming bathwater.

  24. Dave F says:

    jorgekafkazar (23:34:49) :

    If someone is going to apply that standard to comments I make here, I am not incredibly concerned with it, but thank you for the advice. If it bothers you so, I will refrain from it when addressing you. Otherwise please restrain yourself from the grammar nazi behavior. It is sometimes necessary to over do the ‘tone of voice’ in typing to portray the unwritten communication accurately. Most interpersonal communication does not involve text, but subtlety such as body language or vocal tone. How does a person accomplish this on the internet? Just sayin’… ;-)

  25. gtrip says:

    May I see the hands of all of you that have actually participated in a poll such as this? I have taken a few phone polls early in my life and decided that after the loaded questions they fed me to never answer the pollsters again. The best poll is the ballot.

  26. Tenuc says:

    Good to however, perhaps the pole itself is lacking in credibility and some of the big questions which concern people just were not asked.

    Loss of personal freedom.
    Failure of democracy.
    Power of lawyers.
    Freedom of the press.
    Power of bankers.
    UN agenda 21 – world government.
    Foreign policy designed to create terrorism.
    Increased use of nuclear power.
    Failure of renewable energy systems.

    I think that any politician willing to make a start to address some of the issues on this list will do well with the voters.

  27. Expat in France says:

    The BBC “Today” programme are having a field day to day – obviously the revelations about the IPCC are doing collateral damage to BBC idealistic dogma, and they want to try and negate the effect. So we’ve had Roger Harrabin insisting that the glacier business was an obvious, unfortunate error, and that future reports will be far more, er, “accurate”, and it’s all a storm in a teacup. Then we have a long piece on ocean acidification warning us that too much carbon dioxide is being absorbed into the oceans, and we’re all to blame.

    Then we had Professor Mike Hulme from East Anglia University (who very weakly, mildly criticised the IPCC’s “openness”, and Tony Juniper (who talked non-stop, utter rubbish in support of the IPCC). All very weak, and obviously pro-AGW. Of course, Juniper had the most (and last) words

    Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Why don’t they have the grace to just come out and say that the IPCC is useless, the chairman is corrupt, and the CO2 debacle was all just an unfortunate misunderstanding, and all’s right with the climate? Now THAT would be a turn up for the books…

    Awful, awful prejudiced BBC.

  28. Jay Currie says:

    O/T but I thought you’d be interested Andrew.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

    You’re being taken seriously enough for a full scale attempt at refutation.

  29. RichieP says:

    The counter-attack against this apparent apathy has begun in earnest this morning on the UK’s Pravda. The BBC’s Today programme this morning has been running a story on ocean acidification, “suggesting” that this newly discovered horror may destroy the food chain, with the clear implication that WE MAY ALL DIE FROM STARVATION. Government departments will put millions into the research.
    Another story, a few minutes later, with Mike Hume from UEA dragged on to argue (rather fitfully) that the IPCC was being discredited by the current scandal (only one of them mentioned); countered by an ex-mouthpiece of Greenpeace (I think, name missed) who praised this great body of scientists that is the IPCC, who’ve only made a little mistake, and ,in any case, whose very little mistake was discovered by good scientists, not those terrible people on the internet whose agendas are purely destructive and suspect.
    I have never been greatly enamoured of climate conspiracy theories but there are moments when one begins to feel that that paranoid contruction may have some merits. A small joy in the BBC piece was, however, that Hume distinctly called the release of the CRU emails a leak, not a hack.

  30. Peter of Sydney says:

    Interesting. The trend is even more remarkable. Does this mean that in a few months time, people won’t even be talking about global warming? I only wished.

  31. Vincent says:

    It’s disappointing to see that there is still 28% who rate global warming as top priority.

    Top priority! Not second or third, but top. Think about that for a moment. It means that 1 in 4 thinks global warming is so serious that it ranks above unemployment and government debt.

    Ok, I know this is less than the last poll, and shows a downward trend. But the fact is, there are still an awful lot of people that just don’t know that AGW is a busted flush. The message just isn’t getting out there. We have a lot more work to do.

  32. Brian Johnson uk says:

    Does anyone know where Al Gore is hiding? Come on you journos’ dig him out/up and ask Big Al some searching questions and print them along with Al’s perceptive replies.

  33. Veronica says:

    Martin Brumby:

    One man’s “leaker” is another man’s “whistleblower”. I’d love to know who it was so I can buy him / her a large drink.

  34. KPO says:

    There are times I believe (and this is one) that indifference to a particular concern may not be a good thing. This lack of awareness or focus may well be advantageous in introducing changes that if presented in Toto run the risk of being rejected as too radical. If brought slowly and discreetly there is the certainty that the population will become “acclimatized” and over time even supportive. There are countless examples of changes that seen separately appear harmless, but collectively have had massive impacts on society both good and bad. It is incredulous that the population is so indifferent to such matters – it is this apathy that permits, even creates the tyrants of this world.

  35. D. Matteson says:

    From Rasmussen Reports Poll

    Global Warming is Primarily Caused By…
    April 2008 – Human activity: 47%, Planetary Trends: 34%
    January 2010 – Human activity: 37%, Planetary Trends: 50%

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update

  36. Patrick Davis says:

    On ABC here in Australia just watched a documentary about why the great Pyramid era of Egypt, 4200 years ago, failed. Yup! You’ve gussed it; catastrophic climate change.

    Climate change, we are told, drove “Lucy” from the trees.

    The Atlantic “conveyor” stalling causing climatic shift in central and northern Africa (Creating the Sahara desert), Greece, Turkey and Iraq. Egypt, and the Nile, relying on rain falls in Ethiopia which fail and extreme cold in North America and Europe.

    I wonder how many SUV’s were being driven then?

  37. Richard Tyndall says:

    Andrew Neil of the BBC once again showing that he doesn’t believe in following the rest of the corporation in its pro AGW propaganda campaign.

    A nice summary I thought:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html

  38. PaulH from Scotland says:

    O/T, but you may find this interesting.

    I wrote to the BBC a few weeks ago. My questions was a simple one…

    “Why did you sit on the CRU emails for 5 weeks?

    Didn’t you deem it newsworthy?”

    Got their response this morning:

    Dear Mr Hannay

    Thank you for your e-mail.

    Firstly, I should apologise for the delay in getting back to you. We
    realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and I’m
    therefore sorry that you’ve had to wait on this occasion.

    I understand that you have concerns regarding our dealing of the leaked
    e-mails.

    Criticism that the BBC had underplayed the significance of the leaked
    e-mails was discussed during ‘NewsWatch’ on 4 December. Our Environment
    Correspondent, Richard Black, commented as follows:

    “In quantitative terms I’m not sure that we have underplayed it. I don’t
    think that stands up but there is another side to – certainly comments I’ve
    had in from the public – which talk about the way in which we’ve treated it
    and whether we’ve asked the kind of questions that…perhaps need to be
    asked.”

    “…there are different views about how enormous it really is. I mean there
    are many in the scientific community who say that it doesn’t actually alter
    the scientific picture one jot. To start with, the Climatic Research Unit
    at the University of East Anglia is just one of a number of institutions in
    the world that keep records of global temperatures. So even if all the CRU
    interpretations and analysis turned out to be wrong, that doesn’t
    invalidate all the other analyses. And they also point out the fact that
    the raw data is not something that’s gathered by CRU – it’s used by CRU and
    analysed by CRU but the raw data is still out there.”

    As far as we are aware, the BBC was the first mainstream news organisation
    to cover the story – the following article by Mark Kinver was published on
    the BBC News website just after 14:00 on Friday 20 November:

    ‘Hackers target leading climate research unit’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

    The morning after, our Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin, did a piece for
    the website looking at the arguments sparked by the leak:

    ‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail arguments’
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm

    Roger also covered the story for Radio 4 later that night.

    Martin Rosenbaum reported on the Freedom of Information aspects of the hack
    on Monday 23 November:

    ‘Hacked climate e-mails and FOI’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/11/hacked_climate_emails_and_foi
    .html

    ‘Today’ also covered the story on the Monday – the former Chancellor, Lord
    Lawson whose book ‘An Appeal to Reason’ is highly critical of the
    scientific consensus on climate change was on the programme, as was
    Professor Robert Watson – professor of environmental science at the
    University of East Anglia.

    Roger Harrabin reported on the leak and subsequent calls for a public
    inquiry into the science behind any deal made at the Copenhagen conference
    for Radio 4 news and the BBC World Service on Monday morning and again
    later that evening. Susan Watts’ piece led that night’s edition of
    ‘Newsnight’ and a live studio discussion with Professor Watson (UEA) and
    Professor Fred Singer from the University of Virginia followed.

    BBC North weather forecaster, Paul Hudson, blogged about it briefly that
    day and followed it up with a more detailed entry on 24 November:

    ”Climategate’ – CRU hacked into and its implications’
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an
    .shtml

    ”Climategate’ – What next?’
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml

    Roger Harrabin covered the story further for the BBC News website on the
    Tuesday:

    ‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail impact’
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377465.stm

    The BBC News Channel ran the story the same evening – excerpts from some of
    the leaked e-mails were read out and Bob Ward from the Grantham Research
    Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics was live in
    the studio for his reaction.

    These are just some examples of where the story was covered within the
    initial few days of it breaking. It also received coverage on the BBC News
    Channel on 2, 3 and 5 December; the ‘BBC News at Ten’ on 2 and 3 December;
    the ‘BBC News at Six’ on 3 December and on both the ‘BBC News at One’ and
    ‘Breakfast’ on 4 December. All this as well as on-going public comment on
    Richard Black’s blog:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

    It has also been suggested that the claimed lack of coverage of this story
    is evidence that the BBC is biased against the dissident view in the
    climate change debate.

    This was rejected by the BBC’s Deputy Director of News, Steve Mitchell,
    during an interview for ‘NewsWatch’ on 4 December. When asked whether the
    BBC had taken a corporate decision to downplay the dissident view in the
    climate change debate, he said:

    “I can categorically assure you there has not been any such decision and
    any such decision would be entirely at odds with the culture of the
    organisation. Our job is to pick our way through what is a highly complex
    scientific discussion and also to do so with a sense of proportion – making
    sure the full range of voices in these areas are represented.”

    The BBC’s Editorial Policy unit also issued the following statement, which
    was read out on the edition of ‘NewsWatch’ broadcast on 11 December:

    “Our job is to help audiences make sense of the issues and to report on
    where the centre of gravity lies in the debate. This is why, when we report
    on the variety of public opinion about global warming, we explain that the
    broad majority of climate change scientists say that the evidence is clear
    that human activity has contributed to global warming. The scientific
    background is not, of course, undisputed and we also feature sceptical
    voices. We aim to pick our way through what is a highly complex scientific
    discussion, making sure a range of voices is represented.”

    It is however important to note that on 18 June 2007 the BBC published a
    report on safeguarding its impartiality in the 21st century. It is the
    result of a project first commissioned by the BBC Board of Governors in
    conjunction with BBC management in November 2005 to identify the challenges
    and risks to impartiality. The report has been fully endorsed by the BBC
    Trust, the BBC Executive Board and the BBC Journalism Board.

    Below is an excerpt from the section of the report relating to coverage of
    the climate change debate:

    “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
    experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer
    justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But
    these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should,
    because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. Acceptance of a
    basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of
    the arguments surrounding both causation and solution.”

    The full report can be found on the BBC Trust website:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/century21.shtml

    Our view is that the BBC covered this story at length and that we did so in
    a fair and impartial manner. We will continue to report on the climate
    change debate in this way, allowing appropriate airtime to both those who
    support the broad scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and
    to those who reject it.

    I hope this addresses your concerns and I can assure you that your
    complaint has been registered on our audience log. This is a daily report
    of audience feedback that’s circulated to many BBC staff, including members
    of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

    Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your feedback.

    Regards

    Liam Boyle
    BBC Complaints

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

  39. Richard Tyndall says:

    Tallbloke

    I agree entirely. I haev a great deal of concern about our environment – which is one of the reasons I am so appaled by the AGW movement which has done more damage to both Science and Environmental issues than any other cult in history.

  40. David says:

    It would be interesting to carry out a similar poll in the UK, because we the population here have been SOOOO brainwashed by the government and the allegedly-impartial BBC that global warming is still some sort of fact. There are none of the heart-warming interviews with ‘skeptic’ scientists on tv like on your side of the pond – even the venerable Lord Monckton only pops up on You Tube, Russia Today and the like.
    We’ve got a General Election coming up – but so far none of the main political parties have distanced themselves from the IPCC’s climate fraud – so it’ll be UKIP for me – that’s the only party with any courage..!

  41. Hoi Polloi says:

    May be a bad situation as it may allow the government to implement Climate laws and taxes without people knowing/caring about it? Not sure if this is good or bad.

  42. BernieL says:

    I’m with the tall bloke. Great to see evidence that suggests action to mitigate environmental degradation and action to mitigate global warming are NOT identified in everyone’s mind. That at least 16% ticked ‘Protecting the environment’ without also ticking ‘Global Warming’ suggests that – while I have never met them – there must be many other environmentalists like me who have not been swept along with this alarmist tide.

    This distinction between enviromental concern and AGW alarmism has become a particularly hard one to hold in the political climate of the last 2 years (This came to my attention dramatically when I found that in Australia it became impossible to be green AND quietly sceptical because, for example, we began to defend old growth forests BECAUSE they are carbon stores – all other grounds of defence by 2008 had simply fallen away!). And so I would suggest that the results of the last 2 years would reflect many who would avoid ticking ‘environment’ simply because it is identified with global warming alarmism even though they may be concerned about destruction and pollution of forest, oceans, streams, air etc.

    Some commenters on this site would do well to note that these sorts of results may suggest a substantial silence (and currently invisible) minority of environmentalists lost in the background of this current hysteria.

    Note also that the presentation of the results suggests that the interviewee can select any number of ‘top’ priorities and so, Dave F, it is not like the two items ‘Health care’ and ‘Health insurance’ are splitting the health vote. What this survey also show to me (an outsider) is that there is still strong public support for the Obama Administration in attempting to introduce the sorts of social welfare ‘safety net’ systems that we in other developed countries are so used to, that is, I note: Social Sec (66), Medicare (63), Healthcare (57) and Helping the poor (53).

  43. Richard Heg says:

    Good to see that the environment and global warming are classed as separate issues on this survey.

  44. Thomas says:

    So global warming scaremongering has been shown for what it is. Its a pity that terrorism is number three in the list as it shows both that governments won’t stop scaremongering and that people continue to fall for their lies easily. Al Qaeda are the CIA.

  45. Roger Knights says:

    RichieP (01:14:47) :

    … countered by an ex-mouthpiece of Greenpeace (I think, name missed) who praised this great body of scientists that is the IPCC, who’ve only made a little mistake, and ,in any case, whose very little mistake was discovered by good scientists, not those terrible people on the internet whose agendas are purely destructive and suspect.

    I bet that there were some contrarians who argued years ago that the 2035 date was absurd. If anyone here has a citation from a book or two, it would be helpful to put the establishment in its place.

    I also suspect that someone at sometime pointed to the AR4’s source being only a WWF report, but no one picked up on it. This may only have been done online, but again a citation would be helpful to show that our side was on the ball.

  46. Green Sand says:

    O/T, but I think of interest, a Daily Telegraph main editorial today:-

    “Climate change: give us science we can trust”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7074540/Climate-change-give-us-science-we-can-trust.html

    Still pro AGW but calls for the Pachauri to resign and makes the following comment “when the fifth IPCC report is prepared for publication, any errors must be fully acknowledged and others removed. In addition, the report should contain contrarian evidence produced by scientists to demonstrate that this is a serious document, not a holy writ.”

  47. Vincent says:

    David,

    ” so it’ll be UKIP for me – that’s the only party with any courage..”

    Sure, if you want Labour back in for another 5 years, go ahead and vote UKIP.

  48. Vincent says:

    Roger Knights,

    “I bet that there were some contrarians who argued years ago that the 2035 date was absurd.”

    The IPCC invite reviewers to report their findings on each chapter. The reviewers comments are filed away somewhere but are not published with the main report. From what I’m hearing, the reviewers made this exact point, that it was preposterous for these glaciers to disappear by that date. I presume these comments are filed somewhere within the IPCC bureaucracy.

  49. Veronica says:

    RichieP (01:14:47) :

    … countered by an ex-mouthpiece of Greenpeace (I think, name missed) who praised this great body of scientists that is the IPCC, who’ve only made a little mistake,

    I believe the voice we heard was Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Vice-Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

  50. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Patrick Davis (02:32:33) :

    On ABC here in Australia just watched a documentary about why the great Pyramid era of Egypt, 4200 years ago, failed. Yup! You’ve gussed it; catastrophic climate change.
    —-

    Patrick – note they didn’t say in which direction. The strong subliminal is actually that a cooling event could happen again. Since the Old Kingdom fell at the time of ‘Bond event 3′, and pharaonic Egypt arose as a result of ‘Bond event 4′ (they don’t mention these as Bond events, but do link the two events together). So logically you add two plus two or rather 4200BP minus 3 x 1400 and you get Chiefio’s ‘Bond event zero’.
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/

    The other clincher is they linked the fall to the oceanic currents without mentioning the Gulf Stream, although this was implied on the graphic.

    (the documentary first came out in the US in April 2008, forgive us aussies we’re a bit slow)

  51. Mike Ramsey says:

    Chris (23:40:23) :

    Has anyone fed the historical AGW poll results into Mann’s hockey stick formula / system to see the results yet ?

    Yes, the vote totals for the other 20 poll items were reduced in prior years showing that the total for global warming were the highest “on record” in this year’s poll. :-)

    Mike Ramsey

  52. rbateman says:

    RichieP (01:14:47) :

    Remind those jokers that during the “Year without a Summer” in Ohio, it was also known as the “Year of the Mackerel” in New England. The Sea is not an enemy, as Global Warming would have you believe, but is itself a source of food in times of Global Cooling.
    But, knowing the half-truth IPCC, they don’t want anyone to catch on to what we should be doing: finding alternative sources of growing food.
    That is diametrically opposed to green energy, which is perpetual motion with a paint job.

  53. Jon says:

    The title should specify where the survey was done (in the US).

  54. rbateman says:

    Brian Johnson uk (01:49:57) :

    As to the whereabouts of 1 Al Gore:
    http://blog.algore.com/2010/01/green_pastors.html

    He’s branching out into ‘Green Religion’. Apparently the Carbon Credit Market isn’t so hot, and Al needs the money.

  55. Don Keiller says:

    I will not go says Climate Chief

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8479795.stm

    Still trying to brazen it out.

    The man is beyond belief.

  56. JohnP says:

    So many posts but no reply to
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

    Apparently, those “bad” surface weather stations were reporting cooler temperatures instead of warmer. Thus, the warming in the US has been slightly higher.

    Who would have though of that? Thanks Anthony.

  57. Patrick Davis says:

    “Bruce of Newcastle (03:48:47) :

    Patrick Davis (02:32:33) :

    On ABC here in Australia just watched a documentary about why the great Pyramid era of Egypt, 4200 years ago, failed. Yup! You’ve gussed it; catastrophic climate change.
    —-

    Patrick – note they didn’t say in which direction. The strong subliminal is actually that a cooling event could happen again. Since the Old Kingdom fell at the time of ‘Bond event 3′, and pharaonic Egypt arose as a result of ‘Bond event 4′ (they don’t mention these as Bond events, but do link the two events together). So logically you add two plus two or rather 4200BP minus 3 x 1400 and you get Chiefio’s ‘Bond event zero’.
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/

    The other clincher is they linked the fall to the oceanic currents without mentioning the Gulf Stream, although this was implied on the graphic.

    (the documentary first came out in the US in April 2008, forgive us aussies we’re a bit slow)”

    Indeed, who needs real geological facts to spin a catastrophic climate change story in this age of AGW scare mongering? That’s my point. Those “climatic” events changed the Egyption belief structure from one of trusting and believing their Pharaohs were “devine”, meaning they could control the environment, to one of preparing for change (Creating dams and reservoirs etc) via the use of their technology.

    The Moche in what is now Peru also failed, attributed to “climate shifts”, but then too, no SUVs being driven.

    So what does drive these swings? CO2?

  58. That will be sad news indeed for the National (NAS) and International (IPCC) Academies of Misinformation (Propaganda).

    Those research agencies not only manufacture “scientific truths,” they also work to discredit discoveries of real scientific truths.

    Mysteriously, the US military has not spoken out for truth in propaganda campaigns designed to promote untruths (CO2-induced global warming) and to hide truths (N-N repulsion heats planet Earth, powers the Sun and the cosmos, and generates H as a waste product that fills interstellar space).

    These are the sad truths are at the base of the Climategate scandal.

    That is the rest of the story.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Post-1984

  59. R.S.Brown says:

    Please remember this poll is about “Global Warming” as a targret for
    government activity (as in tax dollars) and not on the
    veracity of GW’s existance, or if the presumed phenomena is
    manmade, natrual, or both; temporary, cyclical, or permanent.

    A separate, unasked poll question relevant to WUWT readers might
    be, “Do you think Global Warming is as real as some folks believe?”.

    ___Y ____N ____ Don’t know

    The folks who commission Pew polls don’t really want that
    question asked right now.

  60. JMANON says:

    Where’s the democracy?

    Politicians are supposed to be their peoples representatives. They are not superior beings, they are not our intellectual superiors, indeed some would ask how many of them have function thought processes at all. They are elected to implement our wishes but most of them have forgotten this.
    Indeed, on some issues the major parties conveniently agree leaving voters no way to express their real wishes (unless they are Swiss and can have referenda when they want, or Californians who can bounce the incumbent out of office on a whim).

    Pretty well any index of public opinion seems to show dealing with global warming just isn’t a priority. In fact, it could be argued that it is counter-productive if we consider that the top priority is dealing with the economy.
    If we understand also that the proportion of citizens who believe in global warming is falling, but still up around just under 50% in the USA, then this means that even of those who believe in AGW a significant proportion don’t accept that it is an issue that should be dealt with.

    Another commentator has mentioned Bjorn Lomberg, he mirrors this in his TED talks.
    You tube has some of them here:

    The man makes sense.
    Politicians don’t.

  61. john pattinson says:

    It would have been interesting to see what Haitians were worring about last month

  62. J.Peden says:

    BernieL:

    What this survey also show to me (an outsider) is that there is still strong public support for the Obama Administration in attempting to introduce the sorts of social welfare ’safety net’ systems that we in other developed countries are so used to, that is, I note: Social Sec (66), Medicare (63), Healthcare (57) and Helping the poor (53).

    Nah, the Obama Healthcare “Plan” – he never had one, though – has been chronically disfavored by 15-20%. The Dems didn’t start with the idea of doing anything whatsoever effective in this area. People are worried that Medicare will be defunded more than it already is because Obama and Dems have said they want to do it by way of the “Bill”. It’s also about to go into the red.

    SS, well one thing leads to another, and it’s about bankrupt too – all the excess collected over the years has been spent on other things. It’s going to have to be cut in some way or three.

    Helping the poor? What does this have to do with Obama, who has only helped his cronies via the “Stimulus” bill, while not being effective in creating even a small blip in employment, which you’d think anyone given $787 billion to spend ad lib could do at least on a temporary basis. I think it’s only about half spent, the rest saved probably for Dem. electioneering.

    In the recent Mass. election, the winner, Scott Brown, ran directly against Obama on healthcare, the economy/jobs, terrorism and something else. This is about the last place a Republican should have won.

    One note, the poor Blacks in the U.S. largely reside in Democrat run inner city ghettos, which have been degenerating for a good 40 years ever since the Dem “Great Society” was instituted – a few steps up from what Haiti looks like to be sure, but one of the Elephants in the Progressive Room, which they keep so they can still rail about “the racists” and “the poor”.

    I’ve seen it happen to the Black inner city population and it’s criminal. Now the Progressives have done it to the Blacks again by electing the worst thing I’ve ever seen as a powerful political leader, Obama, who I don’t consider per race, but that was one of the main “progressive” points for electing him, to prove America wasn’t racist – “racism” which they proved was a wrong idea – except for their own racism- before he was elected, by the fact that he was elected. Nice gift to Blacks, eh? Obama might not even last through another year.

  63. Peter Plail says:

    Martin Brumby

    Re your communication with Phil Willis, perhaps you could forward his reply to the Telegraph’s Louise Gray and ask her to compare and contrast with her report on his comments in Saturday’s edition.

    It would be particularly interesting to hear why she says “stolen” emails whilst he says leaked.

  64. Henry chance says:

    Joe Romm’s freak show. Showing flooded shoreline near New Orleans is a waste of time. It is backed by wild assumptions. Doing it weekly tells us we have an anxiety disorder. Skeptics down show graphs of glaciers moving down the Hudson. Most of the anger from James Hansen comes from a flippant rejection to jump on his band wagon.

  65. JLKrueger says:

    Michael (23:27:53) :

    I don’t know why Terrorism is on the list. Terrorism is a tactic. It’s an intangible. You cant touch it and you cant put your finger on it because it’s an intangible concept. Oh well, one brainwashing event at a time.

    Intangible? Tell that to the victims and families at Fort Hood, Lockerbie, WTC, Pentagon, and the THOUSANDS who’ve been killed all over the world by this “abstract concept.”

    While terrorism is indeed a tactic, it is identifiable and can be “touched” so to speak. I just experienced some last week in Kabul, Afghanistan.

    To those of us who are dealing with it and keeping your butt safe everyday, it sure as hell ain’t “abstract”!

    Only someone totally divorced from reality would utter such a statement as yours.

  66. rbateman says:

    JohnP (04:40:47) :

    REPLY: When your NCDC records are filled with junk like this:
    1
    2 46 25
    3
    4
    5 53 29
    6 51 26
    7 51 26
    8 48 28
    9 48 29
    10
    11
    12 55 24
    13 54 25
    14 52 26
    15 56 24
    16 63 32
    17 59
    18 31
    19
    20 49 39
    Full of gaps in the winter months, and your summers are like this:
    217 92 49
    218 101 50
    219 109 51
    220 113 54
    221 115 58
    222 110 56
    223 109 56
    224 108 57
    225 103 56
    226 95 53
    227 94 48
    228 99 50
    229 103 49
    230 103 47
    231 99 52
    It doesn’t take a genus to see where things lead. And when that monkeybusiness starts around 1979 and continues to present, the effect is quite clear. It’s so easy, a Gore could get it.

    But, if you follow along, and pay attention, you might find me skewering your theory with data to back it up. Data from the times in question that hasn’t been altered: That invention, you know, the printing press?

    So, you see, JohnP, the Devil really is in the details.

  67. josef says:

    It’s good to see that the environment is a separate and more important issue than global warming. It shows the public is a little more nuanced than some might think. Most can clearly see the difference between the shaky at best theory of AGW and say Asian carp in the great lakes.

  68. Pamela Gray says:

    I seem to recall another similar statistic about the percent of people who say that regular use of pot is good. In AGW-speak, there must be a cause and effect there. Use of pot causes concern for global warming. Or something like that.

  69. kadaka says:

    Something interesting is missing…

    Capitalism’s woes cheered at World Social Forum (AP)

    Of course there is the expected circus. But not one word that I could find about climate change, global warming, and only mild mention of “environmental preservation.” All this talk of helping the world’s poor, through socialism, and yet…

    Where did all the talk about how climate change was impacting the world’s poor go? What of the horrendous consequences on impoverished nations that will be wrought by global warming, of the swelling poverty and destitution that will lead to the deaths and suffering of millions, perhaps billions? It is one of the main reasons we need socialism and worldwide wealth redistribution now, to help these people survive!

    Nope, not mentioned. Guess those problems got solved.

  70. Pamela Gray says:

    I am still concerned over the low interest in energy. We are still very vulnerable to the hamper heads fiddling with oil wells. If there ever was a job waiting to be made in a poor economy (and a president waiting for accolades), it would be reducing the costs carried by domestic owned companies to start mining for shale oil within our borders.

  71. JER0ME says:

    It’s a hockey stick, Jim (Hansen), just not as we know it (ie it’s going down).

    Right, that’s it I apologise and am off to bed. Got to get my rest in order to cheer Lord Monckton on the morrow….

  72. Randy Hilton says:

    A poll might or might not be meaningful. . . a collective lot of noses might smell out the truth, or they might be collectively biased. But there’s enough proof to think that those polled got it right.

    But just because agw is a power grabbing scam doesn’t mean we’re off the hook. I think we do need to reign in our carbon based energy as well as our excessive consumption. At some point, we are going to “mess in our nest” as we unleash more carbon than our ecosystem can process.

  73. latitude says:

    Anthony, don’t know if you caught this.

    Dr Masters is ripping you on his wunderblog

    “former TV weatherman Anthony Watts” etc

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/index.html?range=updated

  74. Pete of Perth says:

    Brian Johnson uk (01:49:57) :

    “Does anyone know where Al Gore is hiding?”

    Maybe in the same place as Osama BL

  75. Max Hugoson says:

    Distribution of American population:

    1. Crazy, committed, loonie, communist/socialist, “useful idiots” = 30%

    2. Sound thinking, pro-business, sound minded “conservative”, “right” = 30%

    3. Blissfully ignorant, don’t have a wit of understanding…sheeples.. = 70%

    Thus 30% are concerned about AWG

  76. ozspeaksup says:

    somewhat OT but not?
    see here in NYtimes. I suggest we go tell them why defending Pachauri and Gore is nuts! i already did:-)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26tier.html?th&emc=th

  77. Henry chance says:

    What I observe is the attachment of the global warming hysteria to the environments crowd. If I reject wind powered electric, I get accused of favoring pollution of water, land etc. That is not true. We will be accused of wishing for dirty water and air.

  78. hunter says:

    OT but significant:
    A new book by AGW extremist Keith Farnish is overtly calling for terrorism against energy and technology.
    “Constructive Anger, on the other hand, does achieve something useful – even if it may not be exactly what was originally intended. For instance, if all the evidence you have to hand suggests that removing a sea wall or a dam will have a net beneficial effect on the natural environment then, however you go about it – explosives, technical sabotage or manual destruction – the removal would be a constructive action. If this action was fuelled by anger then your use of explosives involved Constructive Anger.”

    The four key rules of sabotage

    1. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Is it worth it?”
    2. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.
    3. Even if you understand the worth of your action, don’t get caught.
    4. Make the Tools of Disconnection your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.”

    And who has reviewed and endorses this book?
    James Hansen himself.
    http://joannenova.com.au/
    Is it time to see AGW collapse completely or what?

  79. Gail Combs says:

    tokyoboy (23:18:53) :

    I don’t figure out the meaning of “Lobbyists”, the third from bottom.
    The US people are scared by lobbyists, or wish an increase in the number of lobbyists??

    Lobbyists have taken over directing the actions of the US Congress in some people’s minds. Instead of determining what is best for the country Congress now panders to vested interests at the expense of the good of the USA.

    “…“Patton Boggs began as an international law firm concentrating in global business and trade in 1962…We were among the first law firms to recognize that all three branches of government could serve as forums in which to achieve client goals, enabling us to emerge as the nation’s leading public policy law firm, and we have developed our extensive business law capabilities into the firm’s largest practice area.” http://www.pattonboggs.com/about/overview/

    Ann Veneman a member of that law firm is Member Emeritus of The IPC. “The IPC was created in 1987 explicitly to drive home the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at Uruguay talks. The IPC demands removal of ‘high tariff’ barriers in developing countries, remaining silent on the massive government subsidy to agribusiness in the USA.”

    Veneman played a key role in eliminating trade barriers. She has worked closely with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, helping lead to the successful launch of a new round of trade negotiations for the World Trade Organization. She was Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and then Secretary of Agriculture.

    In the past 20 years, the real price (adjusted for inflation) of food for consumers has increased by 2.8 percent, while the real price paid to farmers for their crops has decreased by 35.7 percent. Guess who pocketed the difference? The IPC Thanks you Patton Boggs. http://www.clevelandfoodcoop.org/newsletters/2007/foodcoop-connect-september2007.pdf

    “In effect the IPC is run by US-based agribusiness giants including Cargill, Monsanto, Bunge, ADM, the very interests which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade.” http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc

  80. Pamela Gray says:

    JohnP, I am reading the article. Lots of questions and unknowns about their study. One I have alluded to in another thread: Climate zone affects creating a non-random sample in their study. The other has to do with working with raw data telling you one thing, and the homogenized data saying something else. You cannot compare the two. Either you say something about the raw data and temperature trends, or you say something about homogenized data and trends. But one data set does not have direct connections to the other.

    In all, the entire data set is so fraught with random-skewing artifacts that it would be near impossible to say anything significant about temperature trends based on ground sensors. I believe the study you linked to will be easily shot with holes.

  81. Michael J. Bentley says:

    rbateman,

    Sorry to take you to task – but I just can’t let your factual error go unchallenged in this serious discussion. After all, if we’re not careful with facts, how can we expect Mann et al to be…

    Backing up against a heater on a cold morning would be GLUTALwarming
    not global…sheesh! (SARC!)

    (I just had to do it…now to morning coffee….)

    Mike

  82. Ron de Haan says:

    The Copenhagen Syndrome
    http://www.seablogger.com/?p=19158

  83. Pamela Gray says:

    An example of climate zones reacting differently to atmospheric conditions would be the area around Meacham in the Blue Mountains of NE Oregon. Records are set all the time at this station. Why? It is set in a climate zone that is highly sensitive to weather. Temps rise sharper and higher, and fall steeper and lower than in other climate zones. Though the station is rural, it acts like an urban heat island some days, and the Arctic the next. There are other stations in climate zones similar to this one that probably were the seed for the movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”. In Montana, back in the late 1880’s, the temp fell 100 degrees in 24 hours. That record still stands.

  84. Pamela Gray says:

    Another weather-related artifact: The jet stream may be causing less variability in sensors than at other times when the jet stream and pressure gradients are more volatile. This may be due to oceanic oscillations that can have decades long periods of stability or instability.

  85. geo says:

    Obviously you could identify as many as you wanted (even every one) as a “top priority”, or these numbers couldn’t work out this way –so having a great deal of overlap in topics like “health care” and “health insurance” really shouldn’t have much impact on the numbers. . . unless you have some reason to think there is a very small overlap in people selecting both (in which case it would understate the results to most people’s minds, I think).

    That makes the results for Global Warming even more damning tho –it’s not like you had to give up something else to designate it as a “top priority”.

  86. Doug in Seattle says:

    Michael (23:27:53) :

    “I don’t know why Terrorism is on the list. Terrorism is a tactic.”

    It may be a tactic, but it one that is used every day by many people to further their political goals.

    Let us all be thankful that the AGW faithful have not as yet stooped so low. Perhaps if they lost their funding they might think it worthwhile.

  87. Roger says:

    Green Sand 03.25.03
    The Daily Telegraph editorial falls far short of a full analysis of those parts of the sceptics case which dismembers the AGW incontravertable truths, from the infamous Hockey Stick to extreme weather events, and demonstrates it’s reluctance to spit out the sustaining nipple of The Carbon Trust and associated Big Business advertising budgets.
    The following extract, which conflates anthropogenic CO2 with use of resources, is an attempt to continue the justification for action on carbon and very far from a Damascene moment.
    “We have argued that a conservative case for preserving the planet’s scarce resources should support much of the action demanded by concerned scientists, whether or not the case for man-made global warming can be proved. But it becomes difficult to resist the blandishments of the sceptics if a purportedly scientific document cannot be wholly relied on. The most charitable interpretation is that the drafters were sloppy.”

  88. Steve Oregon says:

    The default excuse for the lack of public concern for AGW is that the message has not been loud or clear enough.

    It’s been loud and clear with every newspaper and other media pummeling the public with the government and academia’s alarm messages.

    It’s been rejected just like amnesty was and just as Obamacare is getting now the same.

    Yet with these also the the claim was made that the publc never got the message.

    Yeah, sure.

    On AGW they’ll be insisting a new louder round of messaging is needed and Jane Lubchenco’s NOAA is cooking up a campaign to do so.

  89. George S. says:

    The top priority should be to get big govt out of our lives. The nanny state offends me. I’m sickened by the administration’s pandering to the entitlement class. Class warfare is antithetical to freedom. It’s troubling that most of the list is related to some entitlement program. My priority is eliminating most of these from the government’s control. [Sorry about the rant.]

    It’s a good sign that global warming rates last on the list. Perhaps the next time the poll is run, it won’t even rate a mention.

    Now, if my taxes were cut, I could better afford to heat my home this winter and maybe participate in some good old-fashioned consumerism to help out deserving producers.

  90. Ron Dean says:

    JohnP (04:40:47) :

    “So many posts but no reply to
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

    “Apparently, those “bad” surface weather stations were reporting cooler temperatures instead of warmer. Thus, the warming in the US has been slightly higher.”

    “Who would have though of that? Thanks Anthony.”

    John P, Roger Pielke Sr. worte about this study, and pointed out the disturbing fact that although Menne addressed Watt’s surface station project, Menne did not contact Anthony according to established scientific protocol regarding such submissions.

    Despite Menne’s apparent bad behavior, a paper that had been in the works authored by Pielke and Watts, will be produced in time.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center/

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center/

  91. JonesII says:

    Finally, one more invented catastrophe scenario debunked, but wait….however there are a few left in the same list.
    Well, our conclusion, as rational beings, should be the following:Wherever or whenever it appears before your eyes any scaring scenario, be it “Global Warming”, AH1N1 virus, or whatever, (and they will keep on changing silly scenarios) just DON’T BELIEVE IN THEM! and say NO!, just seek and you’ll find the same guys behind, drinking their favorite beverage….
    They are just planning, using any means, to reach their beloved goal: “A Brave New World”. Their common characteristic: They are not specially clever, really they are fools, they are the kind of people you would never invite to your home, their invented scenarios do not stand a minimum of reasoning and, last but not least, the scared ones are they themselves, they will tremble and tumble down out of fear if you just do not believe them. The worst scenario that these fools fear the most, is being recognized as they really are: A JOKE!

  92. Henry chance says:

    Algore resort property.
    Apparently global warming is of no concern to Algore. He has a low level property:

    This private, peaceful ocean side haven offers bright blue waters and long stretches of beach, and is home to notables like Al Gore, John Edwards, and others who relish seclusion and natural surroundings. This 1,300 acre 5 mile island does not offer hotels, shopping centers, and tourism. However if bird watching, quiet walks and sunbathing is your strong suit you may find life here appealing. There are only 441 homes, no condos, but it does offer proximity to activity rich Wilmington, NC. Enjoy the myriad architectural styles of neatly cared for properties if you can get onto the island. If this is your style, Figure 8 Island may be your place.

    This is the place to hang out if you know in your heart the oceans are not rising. If they are rising, you couldn’t sell this place and get out.

    His behavior doesn’t line up with his sermons.

  93. supercritical says:

    Anthony, a quote from the Menne paper;

    “Nevertheless, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature
    trends are inflated due to poor siting.”

    Maybe you ought to team up with Chiefio, and go to town on ‘Menne et al’.

  94. NK says:

    the public sees AGW as the least important priority because…. ta da…. it is the least important “problem”. it has not even been proven to be a problem because we don’t now for a fact that manmade CO2 emisssions affect Global Climate, hell we don’t even know for a fact how much CO2 affect temperatures in the atmosphere. All we do know is that the IPCC models predicting dramatic temperature increases are farce. Given those facts, the public rightly says let’s wait and see. hey, there IS A CONSENSUS

  95. UJ walsh says:

    Methane Causes Vicious Cycle In Global Warming

    Carbon dioxide is the gas we most associate with global warming, but methane gas also plays an important role. For reasons that are not well understood, methane gas stopped increasing in the atmosphere in the 1990s. But now it appears to be once again on the rise. Scientists are trying to understand why — and what to do about it.

    HERE WE GO…..GO TO NPR IF YOU WANT TO POST….

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122638800

  96. Ron Dean says:

    Moderator: I don’t know if this is a double post or not – my previous post seems to have vanished. Please delete the previous post if it exists – THANKS!

    JohnP (04:40:47) :

    “So many posts but no reply to
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

    “Apparently, those “bad” surface weather stations were reporting cooler temperatures instead of warmer. Thus, the warming in the US has been slightly higher.”

    “Who would have though of that? Thanks Anthony.”

    John P, Roger Pielke Sr. wrote about this study, and pointed out the disturbing fact that although Menne addressed Watt’s surface station project, Menne did not contact Anthony according to established scientific protocol regarding such submissions.

    Despite Menne’s apparent bad behavior, a paper that had been in the works authored by Pielke and Watts, will be produced in time.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center

  97. Steve Oregon says:

    You’re about to be re-educated.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/about

    Climate Central is a nonprofit, collaborative group of scientists and communicators. Our mission is to create a bridge between the scientific community and the public, providing clear, honest, nonpartisan, and up-to-date information to help people make sound decisions about climate and energy.

    Everything we do will ultimately zero in on a set of core questions. Among them: What do we know today about the state of Earth’s climate? How do we know it? What do we not yet know, and how are we going to try and find out? What might we do to prevent the most disruptive effects of climate change, and how might we adapt to those changes we can’t avoid? How does our use of energy, land and natural resources interact with the climate?

    The answers will continue to change as observations improve, as technology advances, and as scientific understanding of the climate system deepens. Climate Central will keep the public informed about these changes through compelling stories that combine words, images and sounds to explain climate change and our possible responses to it—while remaining scrupulously faithful to the underlying science, and avoiding any sort of advocacy or partisanship. We believe good information is the best foundation for sound choices.

    In order to convey that information in the most engaging way possible, our written and video pieces, animations, interactive graphics, and other features are produced by a team that includes experienced graphic artists, producers, writers, editors and correspondents. In order to remain rigorously aligned to the science, our communications professionals work hand-in-hand with Climate Central’s Ph.D.-level experts in the sciences, technology and public policy, and with an extended network that includes the world’s leading thinkers on climate science and policy. Our staff scientists are also actively engaged in their own research, and continue to publish in leading journals.

    In short, Climate Central combines sound science and vibrant media to increase public understanding and attention to the climate challenge.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people/

    Richard Somerville
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

    Founding Board
    Jane Lubchenco
    Dr. Lubchenco serves as Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Prior to her Senate confirmation in early 2009, she resigned from the Board of Climate…

  98. jerry says:

    Heads up on the World Economic Forum at Davos

    http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/index.htm

    Despite the WEF being ‘growthist’ they still have the mandatory nod towards climate change http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/ghg/index.htm

    Unfortunately they aim for a totally contradictory position that is not achievable in any reasonable time-scale

    As governments of the major economies are gearing up to spend a combined amount of about US$ 3 trillion to stimulate growth, one thing is crystal clear: to ensure our future prosperity, we need a high-growth and low-carbon economy

    High growth and low carbon are mutually exclusive.

  99. Daniel H says:

    Don’t worry, pretty soon the Obama Administration and the EPA will be forcing us all to wear tight fitting CO2 corsets to keep us constantly aware of our sinful carbon footprints:

    http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/corset-reacts-to-carbon-dioxide-levels-in-the-air/

    There should be a WUWT charity fundraiser ball to collect donations to buy one of these corset things for Barbara Boxer. She can wear it at the next Senate hearing so that when Gore let’s one rip it’ll put the squeeze on her and serve as a sobering reminder of our current carbon crisis.

  100. Gary says:

    “Moral Decline” is more important at 45% v. 28%. Moral decline as in untrustworthiness of climate scientists?

  101. Oliver K. Manuel (04:42:40) :
    generates H as a waste product that fills interstellar space
    From which new stars are constantly forming. Consisting naturally mostly of the H that fills interstellar space. Hydrogen that they proceed to burn to He, just like our Sun, warming the Earth.

  102. tarpon says:

    The reason it’s called Hoaxenhagen becomes clearer every day …

    And now we Amozongate, the Amazon jungle is not going to burn up and blow away like the WWF said it was … and the IPCC saw fit to print in their AR-4 that what the WWF said – because it was ‘the best science’ available.

  103. Roger Knights says:

    Vincent (03:37:58) :

    David,

    ” so it’ll be UKIP for me – that’s the only party with any courage..”

    Sure, if you want Labour back in for another 5 years, go ahead and vote UKIP.

    What’s needed is instant runoff voting, which I believe they already have in Australia, so that votes for losing third parties get re-assigned to the voter’s 2nd (etc.) choices.

  104. Dave in Canada says:

    I’m certain that if we apply the proper “Mann-o-matic” processes on this poll we can quickly show that “Global Warming” is indeed the most pressing issue and it’s much worse than we thought.

  105. Roger Knights says:

    Don Keiller (04:26:16) :

    I will not go says Climate Chief

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8479795.stm

    Still trying to brazen it out.

    The man is beyond belief.

    Remind you of anyone?
    (Someone you wouldn’t buy a used car from?)

  106. Living_Right_in_CA says:

    I would like to take the time to thank those that made the results of this poll possible. In no specific order:

    Tamino, Josh Halpern, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Dhogza, Hank Roberts, Tim Lambert, and many more.

    Due to their continued arrogant echo chamber worlds that they have created for themselves, they lack the understanding of human nature and have utterly failed in communication of their message.

    From a non-scientist, but very active voter…

  107. Andrew30 says:

    O/T but: A subtle change in the reporting in India.

    “NEW DELHI: A climategate and then a glaciergate and now an Amazongate. British media reports on errors made by R K Pachauri’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the Amazon forests”

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pachauris-IPCC-didnt-research-Amazon-climate-change-Report/articleshow/5502549.cms

    Of note is that it has not been referred to as “The IPCC” but rather “R K Pachauri’s IPCC”.

    In India they recognize that if the leader is corrupt then the organization is corrupt because all that flows from the organization is directly or indirectly controlled by the leader.

  108. JohnH says:

    Our view is that the BBC covered this story at length and that we did so in
    a fair and impartial manner. We will continue to report on the climate
    change debate in this way, allowing appropriate airtime to both those who
    support the broad scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and
    to those who reject it.

    Not according to their own Policy which states they will not give full coverage to non-warmists as the Climate Change Science is settled.

  109. kadaka says:

    Doug in Seattle (06:52:38) :

    It may be a tactic, but it one that is used every day by many people to further their political goals.

    Let us all be thankful that the AGW faithful have not as yet stooped so low. Perhaps if they lost their funding they might think it worthwhile.

    Well… There is Earth Liberation Front, which likely tossed in AGW with “humanity’s crimes against the Earth” and is in no hurry to pull it back out. And assorted “questionable” acts by Greenpeace. Wasn’t there recent mention of “vandalism” against a coal plant under construction?

    In a slightly different direction, as has been reported, global warming will lead to terrorism.

    Wandering around, I found that great fount of wisdom, About.com, and its Environment Issues section where someone named Larry West has “Larry’s Environmental Issues Blog.”

    Terrorism Linked to Global Warming
    Tuesday June 12, 2007

    Apparently with all the droughts, hurricanes and stuff, there will be many desperate people susceptible to being recruited as terrorists. Thus clearly global warming is a national security issue. Fight global warming to stop terrorism, yup, makes perfect sense.

    As mentioned in this undated piece titled “Climate Change Creating More Refugees than War”:

    Scientists Predict 50 Million Environment Refugees by 2010
    According to a report published by the United Nations University, there are now about 19.2 million people officially recognized as “persons of concern,” people who are likely to be displaced because of environmental disasters. This figure is predicted to grow to about 50 million by the end of the year 2010.

    The UN points out that these forecasts are not inevitable. If the international community joins forces to create and carry out an effective strategy to curb global warming and manage Earth’s natural resources more efficiently, there still may be time to reverse population displacements and stem the rising tide of refugees.

    Wow. In just eleven months we will have about 50 million refugees thanks to global warming. All those desperate people, those wanting to aid them and draw attention to their plight, and of them will be those willing to resort to terrorism. Because it’s a good thing to help poor desperate people.

    So next time a plane, train, subway, or building is blown up, it could be because we let Copenhagen fail. Global warming, serious stuff.

  110. rbateman says:

    Pamela Gray (05:54:07) :

    It is classed as a mild hallucinogenic, and yes, regular use would make a mind wander towards an altered reality.

  111. rbateman says:

    Michael J. Bentley (06:30:02) :

    I never mentioned a specific region of the body (that would be cherry picking).
    However, the use of the term “Global” in this context was as a pun.
    Did you get it?

  112. Ron de Haan says:

    Randy Hilton (06:02:30) :

    “A poll might or might not be meaningful. . . a collective lot of noses might smell out the truth, or they might be collectively biased. But there’s enough proof to think that those polled got it right.

    But just because agw is a power grabbing scam doesn’t mean we’re off the hook. I think we do need to reign in our carbon based energy as well as our excessive consumption. At some point, we are going to “mess in our nest” as we unleash more carbon than our ecosystem can process.”

    Total nonsense.
    We have sufficient coal, oil and gas for generations to come.
    We simply don’t have a viable alternative to replace fossil fuels.
    But that will change in the near future.

  113. bob paglee says:

    Anthony — I tried to send this to you as a e-mail and also via your note system, but no luck. Below the <<>> markings, I am pasting my non-AGW concept for global warming/cooling blaming Solar MAGNETIC FIELD VARIATIONS, not CO2. Please read it personally, then you can delete it if you think it is too far out.

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Anthony,

    I am an old retired electrical engineer, and a frequent visitor to your fascinating website WUWT (as well as to Roy Spencer’s). One of your recent charts (Jan. 5?), depicting the solar magnetic index Ap falling nearly to a historical low intensity near zero, stimulated a concept in my mind that may be far out but perhaps deserving of some investigation.

    Think of Earth as the giant armature of an odd-ball electrical generator spinning in the Sun’s stationary magnetic field, but a field of variable intensity that I believe corresponds somewhat to the sunspot cycle. Consider the conductivity of seawater that covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Conceptually, this would create a fairly low-resistiance short-circuit for my giant armature, and eddy-currents would be generated at least in the upper strata of Earth’s saline seas (and maybe even in the upper strata of the atmosphere where it can be ionized by solar radiation and therefor is perhaps partially conductive).

    These eddy-currents flowing through the low-resistance volume of sea water would surely generate heat, the power dissipation being proportional to the square of those currents times the volumetric resistance of the conductive saline seawater. (P=I(squared)R) Earth’s seas are giant heat-sinks, so the process is slow but continuous, irrespective of day and night. Such eddy-current secondary warming effects caused by the Sun’s magnetic field may be trivial and insignificant compared to the primary warming effect caused by Earth’s interception of the Sun’s radiant energy, but I believe it must surely be greater than zero, even if infinitesimal due to the low intensity of the Sun’s magnetic field in the vicinity of Earth’s orbit.

    But what if it is not insignificant? Has the warming of this eddy-current effect ever been measured? Has it ever been considered or studied? Consider integrating the area under the cyclic curve of the Sun’s magnetic field through which the Earth spins over a period encompassing several solar magnetic cycles. Consider smoothing this area over a period such as the Dalton minimum, when the peaks of the intervening sunspot cycles were exceptionally low. Is there a possible correlation?

    Denmark’s Henrik Svensmark theorizes that the Sun’s magnetic field helps to shield Earth’s atmosphere from cosmic ray penetrations that are the seeds for cloud formation. A stronger solar field means fewer seeds are creating fewer cooling clouds, therefor increased solar warming; a weaker field means more cooling clouds. Could my variable eddy-current heating concept, also based on long term variations of the Sun’s magnetic field, also help to explain how the Sun creates cyclic periods of global warming followed by global cooling?

    Did the unusual decline of Cycle 23 through such a exceptionally long period cause an abnormal reduction of my theorized seawater eddy-current warming? Does this and the prediction of future lower-intensity solar magnetic-field cycles portend some future global cooling in addition to the slight downward trend during the past ten years currently being evidenced?

    I am only a recent student of the issues involved in the AGW controversy and not competent to pursue a study of my cyclical oceanic electrical eddy current concept. (I will be 86 in March.) If you feel the concept has possibilities, please feel free to pass it on for evaluation by someone having scientific competence in this area.

    Regards,

    Bob

    {M. Robert Paglee, P.E. (Ret.)}

  114. Green Sand says:

    Re: Roger (Jan 26 06:54),

    The Daily Telegraph editorial falls far short etc…

    I agree wholeheartedly, my reason for pointing it out was because it is the DT’s lead editorial, not seen anything like that before. In writing they have therefore admitted that something is not right and have suggested two actions: –

    “Rajendra Pachauri, should step down”

    “the report should contain contrarian evidence produced by scientists to demonstrate that this is a serious document, not a holy writ”

    Small steps they might be, but in the right direction and indicative of an awakening? I like “not a holy writ”

  115. JonesII says:

    If the “global warming agenda” comes from the UN’s IPCC, let us remember all other UN programs which have already been approved in all these years as binding agreements for all nations. How close are we to arrive at their planned goal of their dreamed Brave New World order?. Which actions should we have to take in order to prevent being the slaves of an international soviet of donkey bureaucrats?
    I think we must not limit ourselves to look only to the climate item of their agenda, we should carefully examine all items of the UN’s agenda, which BTW it is not the source but the instrument of a small international elite whose purpose is the absolute control of the world.
    (as the George Soros “Open Society” project: http://www.soros.org/ )

  116. Roger Knights says:

    Green Sand (03:25:03) :

    O/T, but I think of interest, a Daily Telegraph main editorial today:-

    “Climate change: give us science we can trust”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7074540/Climate-change-give-us-science-we-can-trust.html

    There are half a dozen top-flight comments after the article. Highly recommended.

  117. R. Craigen says:

    Didn’t the Pew Research Center get the memo?

    Hide the Decline!

  118. bob paglee (09:24:44) :
    But what if it is not insignificant? Has the warming of this eddy-current effect ever been measured?
    Several issues: the Sun’s magnetic field is not stationary with respect to the Earth, rather impinges on the Earth’s magnetic field at 400 km/s, but because the Sun’s field is embedded in a highly conducting plasma it cannot directly interact with the Earth, but is being diverted around the Earth. When the geometry is right [at several places and several times per day] the two fields can magnetically connect. That stretches the Earth’s magnetic field into a long ‘tail’ [way, way past the Moon]. The tail is pressed upon by the flowing solar wind and conditions are generated where the two ‘lobes’ [one from the northern polar cap and one from the southern] can also reconnect, thereby relaxing the magnetic field of the Earth back to its original shape, releasing the energy stored in the stretched tail field [energy taken from the solar wind's kinetic energy] causing electric fields and currents [dB/dt by induction] accelerating plasma [mostly sucked up from the upper atmosphere e.g. Oxygen ions] towards the Earth. These currents along the magnetic field lines produce Hall-currents at right angles to the [almost vertical] magnetic field. These currents flow in the ionosphere [100 km and up]. The currents in turn induce electric currents in the ground [or rather deep underground] and in seawater [which is a weak conductor]. The seawater currents are readily observed, but are very weak and the Joule-heating from them is totally insignificant.

  119. P Wilson says:

    Temperature data is downgraded from the disant past and upgraded for the recent past. An enormous totalitarian propaganda machine is forced onto the public to convince us the data supports an anthropogenic theory. This is backed by the Royal Society, NASA, the Hadley Centre, NOAA etc and almost every government. Adverts, documentaries and media overwhelm is put into action to present it to the layman, and still to this day it has very little credibility.

    In all probability because ordinary people correctly perceive it as a social force than a scientific argument, and social forces come into conflict with scientific truth.

    it would therefore have been better for the aforementioned institutions to have presented the argument as rhetoric and speculation, in the style of Lovelock than as science, if they were have any credibility. (admittedly this would have made them slightly sceptical, but I accept most people have a natural aptitude toward scepticism)

  120. nc says:

    Well in the above poll globull warming may be dead last but here in fairyland, British Columbia Canada, it is enough excuse for the provincial government to cook up a carbon tax to help pay for the Olympics. Thanks to Davis Suzuki for his contribution.

  121. Neo says:

    After a “peer reviewed”paper claimed that the Ozone hole caused much of the global warming, we now get …

    Now there is mounting evidence that the ozone hole above the Antarctic has been protecting the southern hemisphere against global warming.

    The bizarre side-effect of ozone depletion has been studied by scientists at the University of Leeds.

    The ozone hole, caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) released into the atmosphere, is now steadily closing, but the research has suggested this could actually increase warming.

  122. Mike Bryant says:

    Kadaka, here is an article about the 50 million refugees by 2010.

    http://usliberals.about.com/b/2005/11/04/global-warming-to-cause-50-million-refugees-by-2010.htm

    It was written in 2005, so the report you mentioned is at least that old…
    I am always sceptical of future projections since they are almost always wrong…

  123. JonesII says:

    Pamela Gray (05:54:07) :

    Use of pot causes concern for global warming.
    …and the use of cocaine the elaboration of scientific papers. LOL. There is share of interests among pseudo-scientists and politicians, being both consumers of this powder, which provokes in them that sensation of power which they are so in need of, otherwise they should feel at loss, perceiving what they really are.
    We, commoners, do not need that kind of help as we were taught by our parents that for obtaining any good in life we must work for it, not to steal it.
    It is really an inferiority complex what drives anyone who wishes to control other people. They unconsciously recognize their feebleness to face their own lives and, as a compensation, want to rule over other people!
    This is the danger we perceive behind all these naive conspiracies, theories or armageddonian scenarios: The fact that these were really made by sick people, and sick people can do a lot of harm.

  124. Milwaukee Bob says:

    Slightly OT but in response to-
    Pamela Gray (05:54:07) :
    There IS a connection! I noticed it a long time ago. Over a period of several years I notice a distinct correlation between, people I knew (and some that I am very sure of) that used pot extensively when younger and a real-time “view” of the world, (their reality) that didn’t exist. Their brain, as best I could determine, sees the world NOT as it is, but as they HOPE it is, but clearly to them it is one and the same place – their dream IS their reality, in many ways, but not all ways. The difference being the things they some how know they can NOT change they see as they want them to be.

    Since then there have been many studies I have read, some summarized in this report: http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

    Key points being –
    …. The highest density of (THC) receptors are found in parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thoughts, concentration, sensory and time perception… and increased rates of anxiety…

    Research on the long-term effects indicates some changes in the brain….. ….(THC) withdrawal leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward…..

    Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to make a person’s existing problems worse. In one study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities….

    So, THC effects sensory and time perception, causes changes in the brains motivation and reward system/perception, increases rates of anxiety and impairs cognitive abilities. From a psychological point of view, that’s a perfect storm for seeing their world the way THEY want it to be, rather than the way it is.

    But as long as THEY are NOT making decisions that effect the rest of us…… opps, to late! Dang!

  125. bob paglee says:

    Leif,

    Many thanks for the excellent explanation about the interaction of Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields. I’m sorry my concept isn’t useful, but your comment is exactly what I was looking for.

    Bob

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Leif Svalgaard (09:45:29) :

    bob paglee (09:24:44) :
    But what if it is not insignificant? Has the warming of this eddy-current effect ever been measured?
    Several issues: the Sun’s magnetic field is not stationary with respect to the Earth, rather impinges on the Earth’s magnetic field at 400 km/s, but because the Sun’s field is embedded in a highly conducting plasma it cannot directly interact with the Earth, but is being diverted around the Earth. When the geometry is right [at several places and several times per day] the two fields can magnetically connect. That stretches the Earth’s magnetic field into a long ‘tail’ [way, way past the Moon]. The tail is pressed upon by the flowing solar wind and conditions are generated where the two ‘lobes’ [one from the northern polar cap and one from the southern] can also reconnect, thereby relaxing the magnetic field of the Earth back to its original shape, releasing the energy stored in the stretched tail field [energy taken from the solar wind's kinetic energy] causing electric fields and currents [dB/dt by induction] accelerating plasma [mostly sucked up from the upper atmosphere e.g. Oxygen ions] towards the Earth. These currents along the magnetic field lines produce Hall-currents at right angles to the [almost vertical] magnetic field. These currents flow in the ionosphere [100 km and up]. The currents in turn induce electric currents in the ground [or rather deep underground] and in seawater [which is a weak conductor]. The seawater currents are readily observed, but are very weak and the Joule-heating from them is totally insignificant.

  126. kadaka says:

    jerry (08:09:07) :

    Heads up on the World Economic Forum at Davos

    WEF Security Officer Dies in Probable Suicide, District Says
    By John Fraher
    Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) — The World Economic Forum’s chief security officer was found dead in his hotel room this morning after a probable suicide, the Grison local authorities said in an e-mailed statement.

    I am not a conspiracy nut. I do tend to notice certain coincidences and connections others may miss, which is a troubleshooting skill. I am not saying there is anything deep and mysterious going on. This is simply you mentioning the meeting, and me noting the death which has occurred at the same time.

    Of course, a lot of people have invested heavily in the coming “low carbon” regime, expecting windfall profits from carbon trading and the enforced purchase and use of “green” technology. There are many power brokers, the economic kings of the world, willing to force this through knowing it will bring them great wealth and power.

    But now, well, things have stalled a bit. Looks like it may never happen. Behind the scenes, there are many who invested in the foreseen inevitability, who are getting wiped out. Despair, in various forms, is expected, and will grow. Is this death connected to the crashing down of the Temples of Global Warming? Probably not. However, it seems likely there will be some that are.

  127. Stephan says:

    This is super serious now. I think we said 7-14 days lets give him a week. Get impressions India wants him out NOW.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pachauris-IPCC-didnt-research-Amazon-climate-change-Report/articleshow/5502549.cms

  128. Stephan says:

    With Pachauri out the whole edifice will fall undoubtedly. The Rudd Government will not win the next election unless it rapidly distances itself as well as Obama et al. Nostradamus here LOL

  129. J.Peden says:

    Michael (23:27:53) :

    I don’t know why Terrorism is on the list. Terrorism is a tactic. It’s an intangible. You cant touch it and you cant put your finger on it because it’s an intangible concept. Oh well, one brainwashing event at a time.

    That’s right, it doesn’t exist. We only imagine its results and that its the primary tactic of Islamofascists. Now take “crime”….

  130. Ed Murphy says:

    There needs to be a Nixon Shock category…

    Nixon Shock – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

    Are you ready for another Nixon shock? – The Curious Capitalist – TIME.com

    http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/11/20/are_you_ready_for_another_nixo/

    But its forty years too late now!!!

  131. luluemu says:

    And in Australia, they are ramping up the scare campaign with regular adverts, not about Global Warming but about “Carbon Pollution” – lots of little black balloons soaring to the ceiling when you turn your aircon on. We are going to be taxed on it no matter what we believe/worry about!

  132. Tenuc says:

    Michael (23:27:53) :
    “I don’t know why Terrorism is on the list. Terrorism is a tactic. It’s an intangible. You cant touch it and you cant put your finger on it because it’s an intangible concept. Oh well, one brainwashing event at a time.”

    It is an interesting fact that terrorism only works if people become terrified. So why do our governments and the MSM choose to publicise these atrocities in all their gory detail, instead of playing them down?

    The other puzzling fact is that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, kill one and another ten will replace them to fight the cause. So why do our governments choose to stir up a hornets nest by invading and occupying their countries, rather than addressing the underlying issues that caused the problem in the first place?

    I think you could be correct, Michael, in that our government want to have us running scared.

  133. OldOne says:

    @Steve Oregon (8:02)
    “You’re about to be re-educated. … climatecentral.org … honest, non-partisan … information” about climate science

    Thanks, it only took a few clicks to get educated.
    climatecentral.org
    – funded by ’11th hour project’ (ie., the hour before doomsday, no bias there?)
    – which features James E. Hansen (green activist, civil disobedience arrested protesting coal mining, “embarassment to NASA”, no bias there?) on the opening page of their website
    – who partners with The Alliance for Climate Protection (founded by Al Gore, no climate bias there?)

    non-partisan?, not biased toward BigClimate? — ya think?

    Nice try.

  134. dhm says:

    Just wait until oil prices start rising again (and they will) I bet the concern jumps then!

  135. kadaka says:

    Mike Bryant (10:11:50) :

    Kadaka, here is an article about the 50 million refugees by 2010.

    http://usliberals.about.com/b/2005/11/04/global-warming-to-cause-50-million-refugees-by-2010.htm

    It was written in 2005, so the report you mentioned is at least that old…
    I am always sceptical of future projections since they are almost always wrong…

    Oh this is good. Follow the referencing for that 50 million refugee number. That article references another undated Larry West About.com piece, filename envirorefugees.htm. That is referenced from the undated Larry West piece I linked to, filename enviro_refugees.htm. My piece references his earlier piece, which your piece also references.

    Note that later piece says:

    The number of refugees worldwide grew from 9.9 million in 2007 to 11.4 million in 2008, according to a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which identified climate change as one of the leading causes of the global rise in refugees, along with conflict and escalating food prices.

    That dates it to after 2008. So somewhere between the end of 2008 and the end of 2010 there is supposed to be about an additional 38.6 million refugees, ostensibly related to global warming.

    envirorefugees.htm, the source at About.com, titled “Scholars Predict 50 Million “Environmental Refugees” by 2010″, has two identifiable references, first is a book by Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation in the United Kingdom (slogan: “economics as if people and the planet mattered”). Second is an interview he gave where he discussed the book.

    After searching the NEF site for this scholarly work, which has the predictions of scholars, I find… this mass-consumption 2003 “pocketbook”, available as a free 796KB pdf download, all of 48 pages which includes covers. Two authors are actually listed, Molly Conisbee and Andrew Simms. By their bios on the back cover, they have good qualifications as activists. Then there is the reference section, pg. 44. The very first one, “Much of the information for Chapter 3 is taken from the author’s own contribution to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ World Disasters Report 2002.”

    The “pocketbook” apparently argues how people have always migrated, therefore we should readily allow for such migration, which can be migration of “environmental refugees” escaping natural or global warming-induced disasters and adverse changes to local environments. Thus the remaining six references refer to passports, flow of people, some historical details, but nothing of them says they they are noted references about global warming and its impacts, etc. Nothing from United Nations University by name. Thus minor things like that 50 million number must be in that first reference. Somewhere.

    Oh, and that interview? At the end of the linked page with the transcript, there are two references mentioned. First is his book. Second says “United Nations Press Release on Environmental Refugees” and links to a pdf file. Which isn’t there right now, not found, but hey, the link does go to UN University.

    So, the source of “50 million refugees” appears to be an activist, with his activist co-author, in a book where he referenced some other activist work he did. That is where the trail currently ends. But, that number comes from UNU, therefore it should be good enough for the IPCC to use as it’s the UN referencing the UN. Right?

    Oh, and according to that book we are to admit the debt we owe to these impoverished people of the world due to the inflicted global warming-related damage, and pay reparations, and help them to cope, so we must pay some more. And the authors really don’t like dam building. It’s a quick download, feel free to risk some braincells and skim through it yourself.

  136. Bulldust says:

    Phillip Bratby (23:05:44) :

    The WEBLOG awards were cancelled. Some techie issue:

    http://2009.weblogawards.org/

  137. John Phillips says:

    Global warming concern is disappeaing at an alarming rate. Experts warn winters may be global warming concern free within a few years.

  138. Benjamin P. says:

    A tribute to well run mis- and disinformation campaigns. Grats!

  139. Richard says:

    Michael (23:27:53) :“I don’t know why Terrorism is on the list. Terrorism is a tactic. It’s an intangible. You cant touch it and you cant put your finger on it because it’s an intangible concept. Oh well, one brainwashing event at a time.”

    Can you touch Economy, Jobs or Social Security? But you can feel the effects of them, and of terrorism when buildings, trains and planes are blown up.

    Tenuc (14:43:46) : It is an interesting fact that terrorism only works if people become terrified. So why do our governments and the MSM choose to publicise these atrocities in all their gory detail, instead of playing them down?

    The fact is our western governments do actually play them down by being terribly politically correct. The Nigerian bomber was allowed on the plane despite the fact that he was on the “terrorist watch list”, (watch but do nothing else), was denied re-entry to Britain and only had hand luggage coming the USA on a 2 year visa, which was not revoked. The only thing he did not have was a placard around his neck saying “Shoe Bomber” or “Underwear Bomber” if you wish.

    The US Army guy who shot dozens of people gave a presentation to an army group extolling the virtues of suicide bombing and how muslims were justified in carrying out terrorist acts in the US because of its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was also judged incompetent in his profession by his superiors. So what did the army do? It promoted him obviously.

    The other puzzling fact is that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, kill one and another ten will replace them to fight the cause. So why do our governments choose to stir up a hornets nest by invading and occupying their countries, rather than addressing the underlying issues that caused the problem in the first place?

    “The underlying issue that cause the problem in the first place” is the fact that you do not subscribe to the beliefs of the “extremists” or the laws of his religion. You have the choice to either subscribe to his beliefs, and the laws of his religion or live under servitude to him or he is obligated to wage war against you and terrorise you into submission.

    Any other “underlying issue” is an eye wash. There is terrorism in India, Thailand, Philippines, Bali, Kenya*. They have not “invaded” any country and they support the Palestinian cause against Israel.

    *(not to mention Algeria, Turkey, Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia)

  140. J.Peden says:

    My comments on this post below are in brackets [ ].

    Tenuc (14:43:46) :

    Michael (23:27:53) :
    “I don’t know why Terrorism is on the list. Terrorism is a tactic. It’s an intangible. You cant touch it and you cant put your finger on it because it’s an intangible concept. Oh well, one brainwashing event at a time.”

    It is an interesting fact that terrorism only works if people become terrified. So why do our governments and the MSM choose to publicise these atrocities in all their gory detail, instead of playing them down?

    [Because people are not as terrified by the known as by the unknown, especially if the unknown is actually pretty much known, as it was post 9/11/2001, and post beheadings. Because standing right up to terror in its face, evidencing courage or lack of fear is demanded, possible, and exactly turns the tables on the tactic of terrorism. That's also why Bush formed an open, effective Military stategy against Terrorists instead of pretending it wasn't what it was, told people to go shopping in the face of an undeniable terrorist attack whose perpetrators hoped to have a further terror effect by shutting down the economy, and partly why he advised the enemy to "bring it on". In short "Know thy Enemy." Otherwise you've already surrendered. Or is ingorance bliss?]

    The other puzzling fact is that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, kill one and another ten will replace them to fight the cause. So why do our governments choose to stir up a hornets nest by invading and occupying their countries, rather than addressing the underlying issues that caused the problem in the first place?

    [If you can’t correctly judge terrorism as distinct from rightful self-defense against terrorism by equating the two, why are you worried about “terrorism” to begin with, because then it doesn’t even exist for you. Problem solved? If you can’t understand the efficacy of a Military and likewise a personal self defense in comparison to the completely vague and never historically successful “addressing the underlying issues that [allegedly] caused the problem in the first place”, you are again in denial of the problem you are claiming to have a solution for, but don’t. Others of us certainly do understand the nature and causation of terrorism well enough, and we at least have to do what is called for in response to the initial attack or we won’t be around to do anything else whatsoever. Or how’s about doing them both at once? Seems that the deathworshipping anti-war people never think of it.]

    I think you could be correct, Michael, in that our government want to have us running scared.

    [If you don't recognize a threat, how are you possibly going to respond to it? No, in the case of actually existing terrorism, you are simply rationalizing it as caused by the Gov't.. That's also why the people who seemed to fear Bush more than the Islamofascists, simply psychologically "displaced" their fear of Islamofascits onto Bush. He was actually less threatening, so he took all the displaced heat, which only enabled the Islamofascists to think they could win.

    Importantly, no one even needs to be afraid or "in terror", or even angry, to be able to recognize a threat and decide rationally what to do about it.]

  141. Eric Anderson says:

    Dave F, for whatever it’s worth, I like your “just sayin'” :)

  142. Dave F says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:45:29) :

    The seawater currents are readily observed, but are very weak and the Joule-heating from them is totally insignificant.

    When you say insignificant, do you mean from calculation or observation? I am wondering because I do not really know how long NASA has been observing the frequency of the reconnection events, so I do not really know if comparing observations would be reliable or not. You, certainly, would be in a better position to know than I. :-)

  143. Dave F says:

    BernieL (03:01:36) :

    Dave F, it is not like the two items ‘Health care’ and ‘Health insurance’ are splitting the health vote. What this survey also show to me (an outsider) is that there is still strong public support for the Obama Administration in attempting to introduce the sorts of social welfare ’safety net’ systems that we in other developed countries are so used to, that is, I note: Social Sec (66), Medicare (63), Healthcare (57) and Helping the poor (53).

    I would argue that separating Health care, health insurance, and Medicare is really splitting hairs. I won’t make any friends here saying it, but it is essentially true that all three have the same core concern, and if you were to make a list of twenty things people consider important, three of them being so conceptually similar slants the results towards these categories. Healthcare should be combined into one category, and other, also important, issues (perhaps Near Earth Objects and Nuclear proliferation?!?!) should be included? Putting the same topic three times in subtly different ways really does not do justice to the breadth of problems we face on a societal level in the U.S. That’s my point and I am sticking to it.

  144. Leif Svalgaard (08:26:05) quotes Oliver K. Manuel (04:42:40):
    “. . . .generates H as a waste product that fills interstellar space”

    And Remarks:

    “From which new stars are constantly forming. Consisting naturally mostly of the H that fills interstellar space. Hydrogen that they proceed to burn to He, just like our Sun, warming the Earth.”

    No, Leif, you spout the same old outdated dogmas that I learned before starting to make measurements in 1960.

    Despite your admirable efforts, the disinformation campaign by NASA and the IPCC cannot change Earth’s heat source into a ball of Hydrogen.

    This paper shows data points that you’ve ignored [“Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun”, Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  145. Leif Svalgaard (09:45:29) :
    When you say insignificant, do you mean from calculation or observation?
    Geomagnetic activity has been routinely [and correctly] measured since the 1830s. The electric currents, I, in seawater can be calculated directly from their magnetic effects which are observed, so the current is actually an observed [albeit derived] quantity. The heating Q can be calculated from Q ~ I^2 R, where R is the ohmic resistance which is known [measured] for seawater. All this is ordinary engineering, like when an engineer calculates the load limit for a bridge.

  146. Oliver K. Manuel (21:52:22) :
    “From which new stars are constantly forming. Consisting naturally mostly of the H that fills interstellar space. Hydrogen that they proceed to burn to He, just like our Sun, warming the Earth.”
    We can break that down into:
    1. interstellar space is filled dominantly with H
    2. stars form from that and thus consists of H
    3. a star starts burning H to He once gravity has compressed it enough shining energy into space around it
    4. if it does that then that energy heats the planets around the star

    Which if those do you not agree with?

  147. Dave F says:

    Leif Svalgaard (21:56:03) :

    Roger that, thank you. I did think that you were speaking about a new effect from the reconnections, but from what you are saying, I see why it was probably off track to think that. I keep thinking of it as a ‘new’ effect, but it is really just ‘recently discovered’.

    Eric Anderson (21:31:40) :

    Thanks! I figured someone would understand the reason for net vernacular.

  148. R.S.Brown says:

    Pew Poll: Global Warming Dead Last, Down from last
    year.

    There can be little doubt the timing of this Pew Poll was
    intentionally done just before U.S. President Obama’s
    “State of the Union” Address topical flow chart was set.

    Subjects such as “corporate bailouts”, “failing banks”,
    or whatever flavor of “discrimination/profiling” we might
    be concerned about weren’t questions the poll designers
    included in this Pew Poll. “Financial regulation” is listed.

    Since the “State of the Union” Address is this evening,
    (Wednesday, 27 Jan 2010) it will be interesting to see
    what the President’s topical pick of the litter will be.

    Almost as important will be the subjects the President
    does not address.

    The .gif graphic at the top of this thread is printable.
    Those who watch the Address can use it as a scorecard
    to keep track of the subjects that are “In” or “Out”.

    Please keep your applause to a minimum.

  149. Gail Combs says:

    jerry (08:09:07) :

    “….High growth and low carbon are mutually exclusive.”

    Great they are promoting Nuclear power. Its about time.

  150. RR Kampen says:

    What ‘terrorism’??

  151. Gail Combs says:

    JonesII (09:30:16) :

    “If the “global warming agenda” comes from the UN’s IPCC, let us remember all other UN programs which have already been approved in all these years as binding agreements for all nations….
    I think we must not limit ourselves to look only to the climate item of their agenda, we should carefully examine all items of the UN’s agenda, which BTW it is not the source but the instrument of a small international elite whose purpose is the absolute control of the world.
    (as the George Soros “Open Society” project: http://www.soros.org/ )”</i.

    You can add the World Trade Organization to your takeover by the " international elite"

    The WTO was given teeth.
    “Under the WTO, member countries have the right to challenge other countries’ local, state, or federal laws as impediments to international trade. If the WTO finds the law to be WTO-illegal, the federal government may overturn the law or face potential trade sanctions. This shift in power to a global-level bureaucracy undermines a cornerstone of democracy—the practice of citizens working with public officials to develop laws that protect the public welfare.” http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n14wto.html

    The US Congress was concerned with this aspect of the WTO and “In ratifying and implementing the WTO trade agreements, Congress expressly stipulated that “nothing in this Act shall be construed…to amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to…the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health.” leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/283/Meyers,_Irina.pdf

    Somehow that statement morphed into this statement by the FDA:

    International Harmonization
    “The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/int-laws.html

    This is where the driving force for a borderless world is coming from:
    “The combined assets of the 50 biggest companies is now 60 per cent of the world’s Dollars 20 trillion of productive capital….Ten corporations now control nearly every aspect of the world’s food chain. Four control 90 per cent of the world’s exports of corn, wheat, tobacco, tea, pineapple, jute and forest products.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1997/jun/20/johnvidal

    Here is more of the move towards a world government:
    In 2007 President Bush signed an agreement with the EU “…the United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards “harmonized” and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU into one single market, a huge step on the path to a new globalized world order…” The BBC reported  (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6607757.stm)

    Democrat or Republican, it does not matter, a totalitarian world government is on the agenda of BOTH parties here in the USA. That is what the corporate controlled lobbyists are pushing.

  152. R.S.Brown says:

    U.S.President Barak Obama, 27 January 2010:

    “Now, I know there are those who doubt the Science… ”

    [Laughs, giggles and tittering from around the Chamber]

    This is a huge promotion for the folks previously called “deniers”,
    “skeptics”, “criminals” and worse.

  153. Mauibrad says:

    Thought you guys might like the following quote from Senator Kerry. Kerry and Obama seem to be out of the latest information loop on “global warming” and “climate change.” I don’t think either one of them really give a shit about knowing the facts.

    Senator John Kerry (D. – Massachusetts) called on climate and clean energy legislation backers to become more aggressive in their efforts. ”If the Tea Party folks can go out there and get angry because they think their taxes are too high [...] a lot of citizens ought to get angry about the fact that they’re being killed and our planet is being injured by what’s happening [...] by the way we provide our power,” said Kerry.

  154. Mauibrad says:

    Did you all notice that the first laughs and slight heckles that Obama got in his State of the Union speech were when the said something about the settled science of climate change. The next laughs and heckles he got were when he was talking about the spending freeze not taking effect until next year.

  155. Phil says:

    The global warming fraud isn’t finished.

    At The Minnesota State Level….Cap and Trade Scam begins already…
    Environmentalists Target Brown in New Ad

    Then we have cope in Mexico, with Arnold sure to be hooked into it somehow, as well as Arnold inviting the whole dog and pony fraud to California, who already has the EPA ready to screw us–all based on unsettled science.

    I want new laws to do sanity checks to make sure BANKSTERS are not profiting, and any crap legislation they pass does not change our Constitution or Sovereignty and that no money goes to Rothchilds, IMF, the UN or Banksters, and if such crap was even planned that the planners get LIFE IN PRISON!

  156. Nick says:

    In the interest of fairness, please visit the following link:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Comments are closed.