Pew Poll: Belief in global warming as a serious problem continues to decline

From the Pew Research Center:

Views about the existence and causes of global warming have changed little over the past year. A new Pew Research Center poll finds that 59% of adults say there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In October 2009, 57% said this.

Roughly a third (34%) say that global warming is occurring mostly because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which also is little changed from last year (36%).

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 13-18 among 2,251 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that 32% say global warming is a very serious problem while 31% think it is somewhat serious. A year ago, 35% described global warming as a very serious problem and 30% said it was somewhat serious.

In 2006, far more Americans said there was solid evidence that the average temperature has been rising over the past few decades. In July of that year, 79% believed there was evidence of global warming, and half (50%) said it was mostly caused by human activity. Much of the change in attitudes about global warming occurred between April 2008 and last fall, with the decline coming mostly, though not entirely, among Republicans and independents. (See “Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming,” Oct. 22, 2009).

Two other indicators of opinion on the issue were not included in the October 2009 survey, and both show significant changes from earlier polls. Currently, 46% of the public says global warming is a problem that requires immediate government action. In July 2006, 61% said the issue needed immediate action. This decline is mostly a consequence of the fact that fewer now say global warming is a problem.

The public is divided on the question of whether scientists themselves agree that the earth is warming because of human activity: 44% say scientists agree, and 44% say they do not. In July 2006, when a much higher percentage of the public said there was solid evidence of global warming, 59% said that scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans, while just 29% said scientists do not agree.

The new survey finds continuing support for a range of policies to address the nation’s energy supply, including requiring improved vehicle fuel efficiency and increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen technology. Support for allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling – which declined during the Gulf of Mexico oil leak – has rebounded modestly. Currently, 51% favor allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling, up from 44% in June.

======================================================

Read the complete report here

Caveat: some of the usual suspects will complain that the graph I presented has “bias” due to it showing only the range of change in the data on the Y axis, and not the full possible range.

If lodging such a complaint, please consider lodging a complaint about the Y axis of these graphs also:

Sea Ice, Sea Level, Temperature rise

Thank you for your consideration – Anthony

About these ads

120 thoughts on “Pew Poll: Belief in global warming as a serious problem continues to decline

  1. Interesting to see these kinds of polls. It should be remembered that public opinion is as fickle as the weather, and of course, everyone is happy and optimistic and “bullish” just at the height before a stock market crash, just as everyone is down and negative, at the stock market bottom. Best to stick with science, and realize that public perception means very little…

  2. Funny but the first thing I thought about when looking at the graph was you were going to get complaints about the restrained Y axis. Being an engineer I try to look at graphs I make in various ways to see if I can justify a smaller dependant variable axis range. I have no issue with your presentation.

    Barry S.

  3. This is bad news for contrarians.

    We may need to switch sides if belief in AGW stays low for much longer.

    Anyone know some good arguments for why AGW is real and dangeresque? I’d hate to have to rely solely on the uncertainty principle and black box computer models.

  4. One thing the chart does NOT show is that the remaining believers are increasingly from the left hand side of the IQ bell curve. Every day, it gets more difficult for any sane person with an IQ much over a hundred can believe ANY of this climate alarmism.
    The first people with the intellectual ability to see through the fraud, on the other hand, are from the far right side of the same bell curve. There seems to be a clear, positive correlation between increased name calling and the dwindling intellectual abilities among believers.

  5. It is nice to see that the belief is dropping, but there are still so many misconceptions about climate that another series of hot summers or winters could swing the belief back to believing in it.

    That is why it is important to make sure that people understand the actual climate of the Earth and not the garbage that is spewed out by so many. Teach the science, that is the key and that is the direction I am trying to take.

    John Kehr
    The Inconvenient Skeptic

  6. The Scientific American poll, the carbon exchange flatline & now this. What next: Hell freezes over?

  7. R. Gates says:
    Interesting to see these kinds of polls

    ++++++++++++++

    Seeing as poll results are all about consensus, this is an important (inevitable, given the facts) change. If science doesn’t run on consensus, as Dr Judith says http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/ and politics does, we know how to interpret AGW arguments at places like RC that rely completely on ‘the consensus’.

    I will not be shy to mention that public consensus on AGW is becoming settled as the public become more informed than previously. It seems that the CAGW promoters were short on scientific proof and long on political consensus. Interesting. The problem was the Team proclaiming that political consensus = scientific fact and therefore there was no need to look further into it. It seems the realities of life have not fully sunk in yet though:

    “An emerging consensus that the globe either is not warming or if there it is there is no urgency about doing something about it, as if we could affect in the first place…..hmmm…. [thinks]….. sounds like…a fascist idea. Yeah! Fascist! That’s a good emotive word! Sort of reminiscent of Holocause denial – and that worked pretty well before :~)

    “We need a new Team word for ‘climate denier’ to go with ‘climate disruption’….. How about a press release that claims, ‘widespread fascist manipulation of the main stream media creating distortions in the science’. Oh wait, that’s us.

    “Hmmm…. [thinks]….”

  8. BS Footprint says: “Oh my! How will they “hide the decline” ?

    I love a challenge:

    Eco-alarmist press release:

    Latest poll shows increasing numbers of people accept solid evidence for catastrophic mannmade global warming

    A recent opinion poll showed a dramatic increase from 57% to 59% of those who accept the solid evidence of catastrophic mannmade global warming, and a reduction in those who believe it is due to natural causes from 18 to 16%, the number of people who rejected the idea that global was not a problem also rose from 69% to 71%.

    I.A.midiot the smokesperson for eco-fascists united said: “this is tremendous news and just shows that more and more people are coming to accept the need for government action to fight mannmade global warming”

    etc.

  9. I often ask belivers if they have personally been affected by global warming and the best they can do is mention polar bears and arctic ice. but i point out that they dont live there and they are stumped as to how to respond. yet they often babble on about its effects being all around us

  10. I would think that a big objection from AGW supporters would be that the sum of Very Serious and Somewhat Serious is still 63% …

  11. We live during very interesting times. We have witnessed the greatest, and most damaging hoax of all time being perpetrated, and now coming apart. It will be something to tell the Grandchildren.

  12. R. Gates says: October 27, 2010 at 9:36 am
    Interesting to see these kinds of polls. It should be remembered that public opinion is as fickle as the weather. Best to stick with science, and realize that public perception means very little…
    =========================================================

    R Gates. The climate ‘Science’ is shonky and the general public has realised this. It means a lot Mr. Gates. The politicians depend upon public opinion. The pack of cards is falling.

    You better get over it.
    Doug

  13. I have found a site with a new product that makes me feel like changing my light bulbs. http://www.odorkillingbulb.com has compact fluorescent bulbs that not only save energy, they also kill odors, kill bacteria, kill viruses including MRSA, and it kills germs. Now my bathroom never has unpleasant smells. I have them in the whole house and never get dog smell now. Try them and you will love them like I do.

    REPLY: Besides being totally off topic, this post violates site policy by placing a link advertising a product at another website. I followed the link, because I was curious. My impression after visiting the website is that this is a SCAM of the highest order. Note for example one of the supposed byproducts of the SaniBulb:

    Sanibulb

    But then in another part of the website you say:

    http://www.sanibulb.com/p/Air-Sanitizing-Purifying-Deodorizing-CFL-Bulbs.html

    SaniBulb™ Helps Fight Global Warming
    Light is powered mainly by coal burning power plants and natural gas, both of which create greenhouse gases (GHG) that cause global warming. The EPA estimates that 1.535 lbs of greenhouse gases are released into the a™osphere for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated by a coal-fired plant.

    Replacing a single 100 watt conventional incandescent light bulb with a 25 watt SaniBulb™ can prevent more than 169 pounds of coal from being burned and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 814 pounds over the lifetime of the bulb. This is over 4,000 times SaniBulbs™ own weight in greenhouse gases!!

    Yeah, right. No mention of how much CO2 byproduct the SaniBulb produces. And, I’m not so sure that I want hydroxl free radicals floating around in the air that “destroy cell walls and DNA in germs”. I take it then you’ve found a way to make those free radical molecules follow your wishes and only target germs, but not throats or nasal passages?

    Sorry, color me unimpressed, I think this is a product with oversold claims. Though I do applaud you for saying “carbon dioxide is harmless” in the image above.

    – Anthony

  14. Interesting, I suppose. In general though people seem to have short memories. I wonder what poll result differences there would be if they asked these questions twice a year – dead-of-winter February and high-summer August.

    By the way, are we coming on to the one-year birthday of Climategate yet or did that already happen?

  15. A pity the poll data does not go further back. It would be interesting to see what kind of correlation there is between the average temperature of the mainland and the people who believe in AGW.

  16. R. Gates says:
    October 27, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Interesting to see these kinds of polls. It should be remembered that public opinion is as fickle as the weather, and of course, everyone is happy and optimistic and “bullish” just at the height before a stock market crash, just as everyone is down and negative, at the stock market bottom. Best to stick with science, and realize that public perception means very little…

    ————–

    R. Gates,

    The exception being that on Nov 2 in the USA, while the voting places are open, public opinion will be definitive over what science/scientist is funded to do for several years or so. : ) All that gov’t money has strings attached ultimately to the voting dudes/dudettes.

    Lets see what happens in that public opinion poll on Nov 2 in the USA.

    John

  17. “Immediate government action”? Yea right, is there anything governments can’t do now… They’re so powerful they can rule out a planet’s climate.

  18. My personal experience says it is not happening.

    The screaming, fear mongering IPCC AGW Hysterics say it is.

    Gradually, hysteria and fear are replaced by common sense and reality.

    or this might have something to do with it . . .

    “It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.”

    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/02626667.2010.513518

  19. As a somewhat related aside to this poll story about our views on what causes global warming; the recent Lacis/Schmidt SCIENCE paper; and Dr Spencer’s critique of ti that became a long thread. The paper was published in the October 15 issue of SCIENCE, which is published weekly.

    I searched through the mountain of magazines on my desk looking for the Oct 15 issue; and couldn’t find it so I went and got the paper from the web.

    Well no wonder I couldn’t find it. The Oct 15 issue of the magazine was in this morning’s mail; and likely hit the company in mail yesterday Oct 26.

    So that is a week and a half delay to deliver a weekly Journal. Something is rotten in Denmark; and I’m not talking DMI either.

    It’s hard to stay on top of this stuff or any new discoveries; when the news is delayed that long. I simply cannot read science papers on line; i always have to print them, so I can scribble on them.

    I wonder what opinion polls on science news timeliness would reveal. Of course since climate happens every 30 years; I guess we really don’t need to know in a hurry.

  20. As a practical realist, I believe we are experiencing a slight warming trend in urban areas, particularly in the big cities and the suburbs like the one where I live. This is caused mostly by human actions, but not by their carbon dioxide emissions. The main reason is the building of more homes, offices, shopping centers, schools, etc., all involving new roofs and asphalt roads, asphalt parking lots, etc., where solar radiation is stored, reradiated and convected into the atmosphere.

    There may also be some other odd activity going on with our Sun that affects cloud formation, ocean currents and temperatures, etc., and many other unknown effects that have caused Earth’s temperature to vary considerably over hundreds, even thousands, if not millions of years.

    When I visually inspect the chart of global average tropospheric temperatures produced from trustworthy UAH satellite measurements, it does appear that from 2002 until Sept., 2010, there has been a small upward shift of perhaps 0.3 Celsius, but with wide variations during the last two years (from zero in 2008 to around 0.6 Celsius as measured in September). And the total apparent rise since the satellite measurementw were started in 1979 happens also to be 0.6 Celsius.

    There is surely no cause to panic, unless one is created artificially by our idio — oops, I mean our idiological, brainwashed EPA.

    However, lately the data appears to be extremely noisy, perhaps due to El Nino or La Nina effects of variable ocean temperatures, so a valid conclusion about a rising trend is not possible at this time. In any case, the change is still trivial, just as is the greenhouse effect of more CO 2 when it is already at the current level, and as more is added, its effect, being logarithmic, is still trivial.

  21. Doug says:
    October 27, 2010 at 10:35 am
    R. Gates says: October 27, 2010 at 9:36 am
    Interesting to see these kinds of polls. It should be remembered that public opinion is as fickle as the weather. Best to stick with science, and realize that public perception means very little…
    =========================================================

    R Gates. The climate ‘Science’ is shonky and the general public has realised this. It means a lot Mr. Gates. The politicians depend upon public opinion. The pack of cards is falling.

    You better get over it.
    Doug
    _____
    You are so right that politician depend on public opinion…and thus, one of the reasons they (the politicians) are such loathesome creatures. Another reason is of course their complete reliance on selling their souls to whatever organization, group, corporation, etc. will give them money for their campaigns…but alas, that is a different topic. Back to public opinion and AGW. The truly average person on the street could really care less one way or another about the topic. It doesn’t impact their daily life (as far as they know, at least not yet) and so the average person has no real opinion. Whatever opinion they do have is likely to have been formed by their watching whatever major “news” channel they watch and so their opinion is just a regurgitation of the viewpoint spewed out by their favorite “news” anchor or whatever the general attitutude or position issued forth from their particular political party. In short, the average person really knows nothing about the science or the deeper issues involved in the AGW “debate”.

  22. Polar Ice Cap says: “By the way, are we coming on to the one-year birthday of Climategate yet or did that already happen?”

    It’s 1119 (911 in reverse dialled with an added 1 … presumably because this bomb was ignited via some mobile phone …. oops, there goes the keys word that’ll get the internet secret service in a buzz and they’ll be done on wattsuplikethat like a global temperature graph)

  23. Well there is another side to this poll of course.

    You ask people in early 2006 if they think global warming is a problem; and that it before the 2007 ice vanish and the 2008 ice reappear; and they will think; well life is great; I don’t have a care in the world so the polar bears look like they are bein ill used to me; I might as well complain.

    So now we have an election less than a week away (in USA) and we had one a bit over two years ago.

    WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, would think climate change is even a problem TODAY.

    If you follow such pundits as Gerald Celente, and his “Trends Research” and a handful of other knowledgeable folks; you would be praying on your hands and knees; that Climate change is by far the biggest problem we have. We should be so lucky , as to have global climate disruption as the # 1 issue for humanity.

  24. R. Shearer says:
    October 27, 2010 at 11:15 am
    “You can’t fool all of the people, all of the time.”
    _____

    To keep control of power, all you have to do is fool enough of the people enough of the time. 100% deception 100% of the time is not required.

  25. I note with interest that the high-efficiency natural gas-fired heat-recovery steam generated power plant I recently visited also ONLY emits the “Water we drink every day” and the “The CO2 we exhale naturally.”

    See? Perfectly natural, 100% available, recyclable electricity. Just like the expensive light bulb. Emits only safe by-products.

    But unlike the enviro-safe light bulb – no mercury and no BS!

  26. I am but a simple layman with enough life experience and training in the science to
    be questioning the dogma of the Church of Global Warming. I see that “wapper” of
    a La Nina in the Pacific and the rapidly cooling southern seas, and the North Pacific
    following.
    As I see it: It is the start of a major loss of heat, and a cooling, not warming planet.
    I fear that polar jet. and this winter that is about to come…

  27. John Whitman said:

    R. Gates,

    The exception being that on Nov 2 in the USA, while the voting places are open, public opinion will be definitive over what science/scientist is funded to do for several years or so. : ) All that gov’t money has strings attached ultimately to the voting dudes/dudettes.

    Lets see what happens in that public opinion poll on Nov 2 in the USA.

    John
    ____
    Simply more of the same for Washington. Gridlock. Doesn’t really matter which “party” is in charge, as American Democracy has simply become a proxy war between large financial interests. Those who have more of their “own” in power in Washington get extra money this time around. Until we have true meaningful campaign finance reform in this nation and break the umbilical cord between big money and Washington, we’ll continue in this gridlock.

  28. After Joe Romm called for a surge in “messaging” It appears to have lost traction.

    Permanent droughts Joe??

  29. As the science does not support the extreme AGW case (IPCC case), there is no driver to overcome the very real political issue of a massive increase in taxes. In addition the massive increase in taxes is to fund projects and changes that do not make sense from either an environmental or an economic standpoint. (i.e. We are not addressing the real problems which is population and consumption per person, and practical environmental issues such as rainforest preservation.) The science indicates increased CO2 and minor warming is beneficial to the biosphere.

    There are practical policy changes that can be made that all or most will support (energy conserveration, and so on). We do not need an incorrect the sky is fall AWG scenario as a driver.

  30. A while back in the history of Western Civilization there was something called “The Reformation”. Please don’t get excited, I just want you to remember why it happened and what the impact was (as best you can). Anyway, we’re at a similiar “crossroads” so to speak, where the claim of “supreme authority” rings hollow and folks appear to be deciding to turn off to the claims of a special group of infallibalists and to start doing their own thinking. I may be a little off in my analogy and timing, but there are close similarities, and the impact of such a revolution –excuse me, Reformation– today may be just as historic as the last time; indeed, maybe more so. Science in general –my contention– is walking a tightrope without a net. (Just because it’s crazy doesn’t mean it’s not true.)

  31. @Grant Lockwood…

    Wait, there’s a CFL that gives off water? Wouldn’t this solve the problem of drinking water for the worlds poor? I like this idea, how can I be a part of it? Also, what have you done to mitigate the increased ocean levels and desalinization from mass use of your product? Thanks!

  32. R. Gates says:
    October 27, 2010 at 9:36 am

    You are completely wrong Mr Gates. Public perception is everything. Exemplified by the 100 billion dollar AGW industry that has spent the last 20 years attempting to sway the public’s perception about global warming, climate change, er….. climate disruption.

  33. As kehr and waterloo said education and information is key. The decline in public education in science, critical thinking, and common sense, and the increase in education in social and environmental science and the emphasis on the group rather than the individual is a great boost for fraud to succeed.

    It is odd to believe in something that is only happening in the news and movies and scientific claims with hidden proof. A news report is not the event. No one ever got wet from a rainstorm in a movie, although I did get wet watching an outdoor movie in the Philippines during a real rain storm. Kirk Douglas was the star and it was 10 years later before I finally saw the entire movie. Where was I, oh yah, And no law in physics has ever been accepted without proof. Yet there are people who will jump on it.

  34. Dear Anthony,
    I didn’t think you could be flim-flammed, but Grant Lockwood just did it! His post and link were a deep deception play, like an “end around” in football, but his purpose was to point out the absolute absurdity of the entire AGW hoax. So, not off topic, really. His sin was forgetting to hit the “sarc” button in the process. Regards, L

  35. So looking at the graph percentage of respondents believing human activity is the cause.

    Percentage should fall to zero around 2020.

  36. @Grant Lockwood I agree with Anthony. Go with LEDS. It’s amazing how much light 6W of LEDS will give you.

  37. BTW:
    The Earth Charter was established in 1996 under the leadership of Gorbachev with various members of religious. The Commission has appointed Steven Rockefeller (Professor of Religion and Ethics) to chair the drafting committee. In 1999, consultations were held on the Earth Charter at the Parliament of World Religions in Cape Town, South Africa and in 2000 the final version was released after a meeting at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. “The protection of the vitality of the earth, the diversity and beauty is a Holy Faith. … The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being.

    http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html

  38. Looking at the analysis suggests that ‘Warmists’ should proceed carefully, although 50% of the sample seems to support efforts such as ‘cap and trade’, the percent drops significantly among that portion of th sample that has heard ‘a lot’ about the subject. This suggests that as the public becomes better informed (i.e. examines evidence and facts), it becomes more sceptical.

  39. Have the poll figures been adjusted for UHI (Undeclared Highvalue Investments in green technology – e.g. the BBC Pension Funds)

  40. I would like to see that graph correlated to how the person voted or what political party the person considers themselves to be a part of? Guaranteed, that the remaining bleivers are overwhelmingly democrats.

  41. No question about warming global temperatures being a good thing? Well, that’s rather biased. Oh, that’s right warmer temps can only do bad things. I forgot.

  42. “…So looking at the graph percentage of respondents believing human activity is the cause.

    Percentage should fall to zero around 2020…”

    Yes, about the time we’ll be immersed in the coldest session of severe winters, if Joe Bastardi has got it right.

    That’s bound to poke Joe Public into non-belief entirely. Shame it will have taken so long…

  43. William says: “We are not addressing the real problems which is population and consumption per person”

    Shall we elect people who think there are too many humans inhabiting the earth, and who also would balance how much we should each “consume”?

    Yes, in fact that is an excellent idea, let them address the “real problems.” Let them campaign on reducing the population and on individual consumption of electricity, goods, and services.

    I am not being sarcastic or rude, just agreeing that this is what policy makers need to come out and say. It is best to be truthful, as you are being.

  44. That chart looks like my stock portfolio performance. ;-)

    I am only half joking, because this warm and fuzzy eco-nonsense is a luxury item for times when people have extra cash in hand and a safe job with a future. When the economy takes a hit (arguably because of costly green initiatives) people lose interest in luxuries and concentrate on things like food on the table and a roof over head.

  45. Responding to R Gates at 11:23: Another reason for the public’s continuing ‘support’ of AGW is that CO2 has been confused with a pollutant, it is also used interchangeabley with Carbon or just plain soot. Something that our Government has encouraged.

  46. R. Gates says:
    October 27, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Simply more of the same for Washington. Gridlock. Doesn’t really matter which “party” is in charge, as American Democracy has simply become a proxy war between large financial interests. Those who have more of their “own” in power in Washington get extra money this time around. Until we have true meaningful campaign finance reform in this nation and break the umbilical cord between big money and Washington, we’ll continue in this gridlock.

    ————–

    R. Gates,

    sarcasm on/

    Sure, why vote. It just doesn’t matter. Democracy is fake. We can’t do nothing anyway. Fate has overtaken us.

    The climate scientists are the new UnTouchables. They are gods (the bad kind not the good kind). We cannot touch those climate scientists at all. They already won. We are doomed. DOOMED.

    sarcasm off/

    R. Gates , ha ha ha . . . . . . man, go get some martinis or something. You been hanging with a dismal crowd there my man.

    John

  47. OT

    Please vote no in this California Prop 23 poll.

    WUWT is going to need things to make fun of next year, laughing at CA and the damage they will suffer will be a hoot in the event of a real no vote on Prop 23.
    We can track the job loses and higher energy bills in real time on our blog, and get a jolly good belly laugh at them fools in CA. Lets hope the fools in California live up to their reputation and vote down prop 23.

    Big oil companies versus the ‘global warming law’
    Poll on left side in article, scroll down.

    http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/10/big-oil-companies-vs-the-global-warming-law.html

  48. As Bill Clinton said: “It’s the economy, …”

    People can only worry about one or two things at a time.

  49. I think the logical question after answers “yes” to AGW and “yes” to immediate gov action is: Have you reduced your carbon footprint by at least the “expert” recomended 80% since you came to the conclusion that AGW is a big enough problem to warrant gov action?

  50. The comments were:
    ————————-
    R. Gates says:
    October 27, 2010 at 9:36 am
    Interesting to see these kinds of polls. It should be remembered that public opinion is as fickle as the weather, and of course, everyone is happy and optimistic and “bullish” just at the height before a stock market crash, just as everyone is down and negative, at the stock market bottom. Best to stick with science, and realize that public perception means very little…
    ————————-
    Best to stick with science,

    Yes, but whose science?

    And I seem to recall that when the ‘public opinion’ was at it’s height, you and yours were violently beating the drum for ‘cap and trade,’ and a myriad of other restrictions on human activity.

    But now that the fire has all but extinguished, well here you are playing the sour grapes game.

  51. Zeke the Sneak says:
    October 27, 2010 at 12:48 pm
    William says: “We are not addressing the real problems which is population and consumption per person”

    Shall we elect people who think there are too many humans inhabiting the earth, and who also would balance how much we should each “consume”?

    Yes, in fact that is an excellent idea, let them address the “real problems.” Let them campaign on reducing the population and on individual consumption of electricity, goods, and services.

    I am not being sarcastic or rude, just agreeing that this is what policy makers need to come out and say. It is best to be truthful, as you are being.

    Are you volunteering to become the very first person to step into the ‘obliteration chamber’ in order to ‘reduce the use of resources and decrease the population?’

    If not, then your statements are more than a bit hypocritical.

  52. The scientific evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect abounds: TOA satellites measure consistently an energy imbalance (net accumulation), the TOA IR emission spectrum shows a depression in the region of the 15 micron CO2 absorption band that is increasing in size, the downward IR spectrum shows an increasing emission from CO2; there is remarkable agreement in atmospheric warming as measured on the surface by thermometers and in the troposphere by microwave radiances, there is a measurable and steadily increasing melting of land ice (glaciers, greenland, antartica) and arctic sea ice, satellite and tidal gauge measurements show a persistent increase in sea level, and all of this when we are at a 100-year solar minimum!

    There are certainly issues – current measurements of oceanic heat content cannot account for the total TOA energy imbalance, models to project warming into the next century will seem simple-minded compared to the ones we will have in 20 years, and we don’t fully understand the forcing associated with clouds. The science is not settled now, nor will it ever be.

    The physics of CO2 absorption make this greenhouse gas, which is steadily and measurably increasing in the atmosphere, able to provide a clear and reasonably well understood mechanism for forcing the change we now see. No other mechanism, other than the general non-mechanistic statement of “natural causes”, has been identified. No natural causes have been identified.

    It is easy to obfuscate an issue and to confuse the general public. Look only at the previous issues of acid rain, smoking, ozone hole. Skeptics say that the science is not settled, but the treat their assertions as rigorously proven. It is easy to make this issue political, as a contest between liberal and conservative ideologies. It is not such an issue. It deals with developing detailed and mechanistic scientific explanations of observed natural phenomena.

    Clearly this recent and rather abrupt warming is something we need to keep an eye on and try to understand. People on this site who treat the issue as a political gotcha game do all of humanity a great disservice.

    Grow up and quit playing your foolish little games.

  53. 899 says:
    October 27, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Hey!, you DID NOT UNDERSTAND ZEKE, re-read the post. BTW: The best advice for you Malthusians is the following: Do not hesitate, preach with the example: Do it Now!

  54. Public perspection has no bearing upon whether there is GW, nor on the reasons behind any GW. It has no bearing upon the underlying science.
    However, it is importantant for 2 reasons. First, it is easier to sell the ‘science is settled’ dogma when the public hold the view that there is AGW. Second, Politicians have an eye for they believe are popular policies and which will encourage voter support. Politicians know that if they stray against public opinion to far, come election time, they will get booted out. The green movement was popular and the reason why the Politicians thought that they would jump on the bandwagon (and exploit it for what it is worth). However, if public opinion continues to slide, sooner or later Politicians will wake up and realise that pursuing CO2 reduction policies may come and back and bite them come election time. Whne they appreciate this, the CO2 reduction policies will be watered down.

  55. Expect another hard drop in the polls as La Nina begins thumping the N. Hemisphere.
    For AGW, the ice & snow will have extra bite, as is the general look on people’s faces as the reality of an early Winter takes form.

  56. R. Gates says: October 27, 2010 at 11:23 am

    …and thus, one of the reasons they (the politicians) are such loathesome creatures. Another reason is of course their complete reliance on selling their souls to whatever organization, group, corporation, etc. will give them money for their campaigns…
    =============================================================
    Mr. Gates This is pretty rich –The AGW crowd were quite happy to persuade these same loathsome politicians with their shonky science to spend quad zillions to ‘save the planet’ on what is plainly their B.S.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
    The truly average person on the street could really care less one way or another about the topic. It doesn’t impact their daily life (as far as they know, at least not yet) . and so the average person has no real opinion.
    =============================================================
    Mr. Gates. You delude yourself with your apparent contempt for the ‘man in the street’. The general public is intelligent and can spot B.S. soon enough – that is why this downturn in public perception has occurred. They have spotted the shonky science, and they sure as hell know when they are being robbed blind in taxes used to ‘save the planet’.
    —————————————————————————————
    Whatever opinion they do have is likely to have been formed by their watching whatever major “news” channel they watch.
    =============================================================
    Well Mr. Gates the MSM which is abysmal in its coverage of the sceptic’s viewpoint is failing in its proper purpose at about the same rate as the B.S. is being seen by the ‘man in the street’. There are many other means of communication such as the ‘blogosphere’. Don’t underestimate the ability of the public to find out what is going on and sort out the B.S.

    Doug

  57. Owen says says October 27, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    The scientific evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect abounds: TOA satellites measure consistently an energy imbalance (net accumulation), the TOA IR emission spectrum shows a depression in the region of the 15 micron CO2 absorption band that is increasing in size, the downward IR spectrum shows an increasing emission from CO2; there is remarkable agreement in atmospheric warming as measured on the surface by thermometers and in the troposphere by microwave radiances, there is a measurable and steadily increasing melting of land ice (glaciers, greenland, antartica) and arctic sea ice, satellite and tidal gauge measurements show a persistent increase in sea level, and all of this when we are at a 100-year solar minimum!

    There are certainly issues – current measurements of oceanic heat content cannot account for the total TOA energy imbalance, models to project warming into the next century will seem simple-minded compared to the ones we will have in 20 years, and we don’t fully understand the forcing associated with clouds. The science is not settled now, nor will it ever be.

    The physics of CO2 absorption make this greenhouse gas, which is steadily and measurably increasing in the atmosphere, able to provide a clear and reasonably well understood mechanism for forcing the change we now see. No other mechanism, other than the general non-mechanistic statement of “natural causes”, has been identified. No natural causes have been identified.

    So tell us why H2O itself is not the mechanism?

    Also, tell us about epicycles, phlogiston, the lumeniferous ether and a bunch of concepts that were, presumably, in their time a clearly understood mechanism, but were just wrong.

  58. Adam says:
    October 27, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Why do 46% say it requires government action where only 34% believe in AGW?
    _________Reply;
    The use of Prosecuting attorneys, and federal investigations into the fraud, 23% of response choice?

  59. “”””” Owen says:
    October 27, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    The scientific evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect abounds: “””””

    Well Owen; you will get no argument on that (well speaking for me anyway); that is irrefutable.; excuse me; make that incontrovertible !

    You then went on to say :-

    “”””” There are certainly issues – current measurements of oceanic heat content cannot account for the total TOA energy imbalance, “””””

    So this is where I start slipping on the ice. We have an agreed on mechanism for a small increase in heat content of the atmosphere; which in the global scheme of things is a rather minor part of the earth’s energy storage capacity; and then we run into the inability to account for the change or lack of change in the heat content, of what is clearly a very much larger heat storage portion of the planet; maybe hundreds to thousands of times that which we seem to agree on;

    And that is not a sufficient cause for us to hesitate on treating the minor atmospheric warming as consequential; even though we are quite unable to demonstrate that any of that atmospheric imbalance is in any meaningful way transferred to the major energy storehouse; namely the deep oceans.

    I realize that it would be enormously complex to even consider any monitoring of the vastly larger yet; heat content of the solid part of the planet.

    This sounds a bit like a pimple on a wrinkle on a sandfly’s A***, if you ask me; Well don’t ask; I might be tempted to tell you what I really think.

    Do try to at least be consistent. If one MAJOR part of the puzzle is not a part of the CONCENSUS SETTLED SCIENCE; don’t fall back on the infallibility of one minor aspect of the problem.

  60. Richard Sharpe says:
    October 27, 2010 at 1:45 pm
    “So tell us why H2O itself is not the mechanism?”

    H2O is in the mechanism, mightily, as the most potent positive feedback in the warming process (a warming atmosphere will contain increasingly more H2O). For H2O to explain the forcing however, you would need to posit a great steam vent in the pacific (or somewhere else) that would steadily and consistently pump out water vapor. But even that would condense almost immediately. It is quite difficult to make H2O a forcing agent of climate change on its own.

  61. @899

    I just meant policy makers should campaign openly about “overpopulation” and controlling “individual consumption.”

    This is precisely what is meant by scientists and policy makers who come to us with hockey sticks and peddle “sustainablility.” But they know that if they ever said overtly said that the “real problem” is “population” and “individual consumption,” they would not see the inside of the dog catchers’ truck, let alone the WH.

    Sorry if not clear. We hope to serve you better in the future. :-)

  62. Owen says:
    October 27, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    Let me tell you: You owe yourself a real scientific explanation. As you believe i the UN, try with the UN’s FAO organization, which shows how LOD is what is really behind temperatures changes:
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
    Open the 08th. document, and see the graphs (BTW; this data is used by fishermen all over the world to accurately forecast fish catches).
    You will then realize that it is not so simple as one may think: LOD follows gravity field, magnetic fields:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC19.htm

    and gravity fields, etc.
    Have you ever wondered why, but precisely why the Earth is inclined on the ecliptic in 23 degrees, and why is it so that your heart in within your chest is inclined,etc., etc.?
    Believe me, we know nothing yet!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/40240418/Unified-Field-Explained-3

  63. George Smith says:

    “Do try to at least be consistent. If one MAJOR part of the puzzle is not a part of the CONCENSUS SETTLED SCIENCE; don’t fall back on the infallibility of one minor aspect of the problem.”
    —————————————————————–
    Oceanic heat content is a major issue, and an unsettled one at that, but I did not dwell on any one minor aspect of the issue. I covered a series of internally consistent physical observations, all pointing to a rather rapid and recent change in global heat content. The heat capacity of the ocean overwhelms that of land or atmosphere, making the temperature changes of the ocean far smaller and more difficult to measure than that of the atmosphere. The stratification of the ocean and poor access to the deep ocean means that we simply do not know how the accumulating heat may be distributed. (We will know however, because science marches on, and that question will become better understood).

    My point is this: the overall confluence of physically measurable data points to an energy imbalance and to the warming that would be expected to result from that imbalance.

  64. Interesting to see how the CAGW meme is in rapid decline.

    Only a couple of years ago I was one of only two sceptics, out of our small circle of 23 friends. Currently we have been joined by new converts and now only three die-hard believers remain.

    I find it reassuring that despite the billions of dollars spent on this scam, more and more of the public have the common sense to see through the lie.

  65. Owen says:
    October 27, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    Richard Sharpe says:
    October 27, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    It is quite difficult to make H2O a forcing agent of climate change on its own.

    Check out these threads by Roy Spencer

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/28/congratulations-finally-to-spencer-and-braswell-on-getting-their-new-paper-published/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/spencer-on-water-vapor-feedback/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/21/spencer-on-lacis-nasa-giss-co2-paper/

  66. I doubt that any thinking person would seriously doubt that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” whose effect is logarithmic. The real question is how trivial will be its effect if it increases somewhat until fusion power (or something similar) can be harnessed in the perhaps distant future? From the current already fairly high level of CO2, if the level rises even 10%, its logarithmic “greenhouse effect” will be trivial when such possible effect is compared to the enormous variations in Earth’s temperature that have occurred over millions of years due to unknown other causes, possibly related to our Sun?

  67. I think if you could determine party political support you’d find the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ sides completely polarised.

    Here is a similar poll result from Oz which has party support included. In Oz, Labor and Green parties are of the Left, and Liberal and National parties mostly of the Right.

    On the strength of this I suspect in answer to the above question “Is is a problem requiring immediate government action” that the 46% saying yes are on the Democrat side of the spectrum, and the 47% saying No/not a problem are on the Republican side. Cats and dogs.

  68. Owen says:
    “There are certainly issues – current measurements of oceanic heat content cannot account for the total TOA energy imbalance”

    You mean where is the heat? Ill tell you where the heat is Owen, it is leaving. It has been leaving ever since the Holocene optimum 8000 years ago. These are the good old days. Enjoy it while it lasts.

  69. While public opinion certainly matters, it reflects a trickle down effect of information gathered from other sources, primarily through the media. In that context, when stifling public discourse and debate from all sides is allowed, public opinion can be and all too often is the ultimate social expression of GIGO. That is precisely why it is imperative that good, factually backed information be made available for all to see, even if that information engenders conflicting opinions. A voting citizen cannot make a prudent, informed decision without having good, hard facts and information available to them.

    What I find most interesting is the percentage of scientists convinced about AGW has dropped from a pro AGW 2-1 ratio (59-29) to dead even (44-44), with 12% of scientists still undecided through the entire polling range of years. I don’t know what the parameters are to qualify as a scientist for this poll. Did they poll physicists or did they poll anyone that works in some field of science, not necessarily related to climate? Whatever the parameters may be, the drop from a pro AGW 2-1 ratio of scientists to dead even in just 4 years is remarkable.

  70. I only know one true believer, however, he also claimed that he could see the ozone hole when he was in Antarctica.

    DaveE.

  71. Owen said “…and all of this when we are at a 100-year solar minimum!
    (new paragraph)
    There are certainly issues – current measurements of oceanic heat content cannot account for the total TOA energy imbalance…”

    Owen, presumably you are interested in OHC because you believe there is a lag from CO2 warming to atmospheric warming (with water vapor feedback) due to ocean thermal inertia. Yet you also claim that the solar minimum should show up right now with no lag and no leftover heat from the CO2 to ocean warming you believe has taken place.

  72. B. Smith says:
    October 27, 2010 at 4:06 pm
    While public opinion certainly matters, it reflects a trickle down effect of information gathered from other sources, primarily through the media. In that context, when stifling public discourse and debate from all sides is allowed, public opinion can be and all too often is the ultimate social expression of GIGO. That is precisely why it is imperative that good, factually backed information be made available for all to see, even if that information engenders conflicting opinions. A voting citizen cannot make a prudent, informed decision without having good, hard facts and information available to them.
    ______
    The average voter is far more pursuaded by emotional appeal than any facts you can present to them, and this is especially true when trying to present information as difficult and complex as climate science. The facts are that the climate is a very complex system, existing at the edge of chaos, with far too many complex interrelationships to be easily and truthfully explained to the public– thus, the emotional appeal wins everytime. Both “sides” in the AGW issue use emotional appeal, though each is of a different color. On the “warmist” side you have only the iconic poor polar bear stranded (via Photoshop) on the rapidly melting iceberg or the infamous hockey stick graph to get the point, and on the “skeptic” side you have the broken hockey stick and the deeper emotional appeal to the general growing distrust of big science and big government (especially internationally linked big governemnt, i.e. the IPCC). Cool and skeptical distrust is as much an emotion as the warm and fuzzy compassion sparked by the poor stranded photoshopped polar bear– they are both at root an emotional reaction and will win far more votes than any attempt to explain the science. The skeptics will use their distrust to go and find the reasons why the climate scientists are wrong or even worse, to be distrusted, (i.e. climategate) and the warmists will use their warm and fuzzy compassion to find the reasons why we need to take action and to prevent catastrophe. Those in both camps are witting or unwitting pawns of political forces on both sides, who are driven ultimately by financial concerns, and who know that successful appeals to the emotions , whether that emotion be compassion or distrust, always win the day.

    In the best of all worlds, the true scientist will avoid both camps, stay far and wide of any politics, (where they will certainly be used as a tool for ends they have no control over) and simply state their findings, and even more importantly, open their data to the whole world for full review and discussion.

  73. “”””” bob paglee says:
    October 27, 2010 at 3:09 pm
    I doubt that any thinking person would seriously doubt that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” whose effect is logarithmic. “””””

    Well meet the very first person you’ve ever heard of ; who does not believe that; ME !

    Well I AM a thinking person; so I am a member of the polled class.

    And I don’t doubt; either seriously or cavalierly; that indeed CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”.

    But “” whose effect is logarithmic “” ?

    Well you just lost me there. For a start; the logarithm function for positive real numbers; is a monotonic function. Argument increases; and the log function also increases; ALWAYS. You never get a behavior where at some point, when the argument increases some more; the log function goes down; that simply is not a property of the log function.

    We have proxy data covering five octaves of CO2 abundance and 10 deg C of Temperature excursion for the same time frame; and there is no way you could fit that data to any sort of log function; you cannot fit it to a linear function either; and it would be impossible to prove that the best fit log function was a better fit, than the best fit linear function; and I doubt you could fit it to any polynomial function having less than ten arbitrarily fitted parameters.

    We also have a more restrictive range of actual experimentally measured real data; which actually encompasses only about 0.3 octaves of CO2 abundance; and yet even with that more accurate data, and restricted range the data does not fit any monotonic function; and is no better fit to a log function than to a linear function.

    So no; I don’t buy it; and I somehow don’t think I am alone there.

  74. “”””” Owen says:
    October 27, 2010 at 2:13 pm
    Richard Sharpe says:
    October 27, 2010 at 1:45 pm
    “So tell us why H2O itself is not the mechanism?”

    H2O is in the mechanism, mightily, as the most potent positive feedback in the warming process (a warming atmosphere will contain increasingly more H2O). For H2O to explain the forcing however, you would need to posit a great steam vent in the pacific (or somewhere else) that would steadily and consistently pump out water vapor. But even that would condense almost immediately. It is quite difficult to make H2O a forcing agent of climate change on its own. “””””

    Why so ? Even in the very dryest desert regions on earth; some say the Atacama in Chile tops the list; while Antarctica is considered the dryest and coldest Continent; the atmospheric abundance of H2O is higher than that for CO2; so a steam vent is hardly necessary to put H2O in the atmosphere; and as everybody knows; the thermal radiation from the atmosphere carries no signature of the origin of the heating; and since the H2O feedback factor is about 4 for CO2 caused warming; and can’t possibly be difefrent for H2O caused warming sicne warming carries no signature; then H2O by itslef is quite capable of doing the whole job.

    And with that big a feedback factor from initial warming to increased H2O Vapor, the system is unstable with that much positive feedback so it runs up to the stop; which happens to be the onset of powerful negative feedback from increased clouds blocking sunlight, and shutting down the original source of the energy. If you could somehow siphon off all the clouds so there was no cloud blockage of the sun or albedo contributtion from them; the earth’s oceans would simply evaporate away; driven by no more than the initial however low H2O content of the atmosphere; and it would all end up in that cloud siphon.

    So nyet! on the need for any CO2 to start the exodus.

  75. I published the comment below on Jo Nova’s site today but as Anthony is talking about consensus the comment is relevant here as well:

    Did anyone see the article in the Australian Climate change sceptics lose battle as onus of proof shifts http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/climate-change-sceptics-lose-battle-as-onus-of-proof-shifts/story-e6frg97x-1225941959223
    It’s about the precautionary principle which I anticipate Julia Gillard will start to talk about shortly; As the article says ‘The principle appears in Article 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992. It is one of the four principles of ecologically sustainable development. Those principles have been absorbed into Australian environmental law at commonwealth and state levels since 1991.’
    “the precautionary principle operates to shift the evidentiary burden of proof as to whether there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage,” “Where there is a reasonably certain threat of serious or irreversible damage, the precautionary principle is not needed and is not evoked . . . “But where the threat is uncertain, past practice had been to defer taking preventative measures because of that uncertainty.’
    This has been changed by the absorption into Australian law of the precautionary principle which “… operates, when activated, to create an assumption that the threat is not uncertain but rather certain. “… if there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and there is the requisite degree of scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle will be activated.”

    The author goes on to say ‘In Australia, the climate sceptics have failed. No political party is arguing that the threat does not exist or is negligible. The only argument now, in accordance with the precautionary principle, is determining what preventative measures have to be taken to reduce emissions.’

    But the author fails to explore the possibility that the threat does not exist or is negligible; just because political parties are not arguing about it does not mean the threat does not exist or is negligible; I’m still firmly of the belief that a Royal Commission should be held to determine this issue for Australia;

  76. Anthony,m

    Even more interesting are the results of the poll attached to the Judith Curry article in Scientific American — this is a poll of the alleged scientific intelligentsia of the USA — SciAm readers.

    Ongoing results available at:

    http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

    Pretty interesting. Of course, skeptic blogs may be driving traffic to the poll, skewing the results…or not. In any case, the results are shocking (?) and/or amusing.

  77. Kip Hansen says:
    October 27, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    Thanks for the link! Devastating!….now…like the great George Carlin said: “Pack your sh**s folks….we are leaving!!

  78. R. Shearer says:
    October 27, 2010 at 11:15 am
    “You can’t fool all of the people, all of the time.”
    I am sure that’s what lemmings are thinking as they go over the cliff.
    And while you all sit here blogging your beliefs, reality moves ever onward.

  79. Val said:
    “The author goes on to say ‘In Australia, the climate sceptics have failed. No political party is arguing that the threat does not exist or is negligible. The only argument now, in accordance with the precautionary principle, is determining what preventative measures have to be taken to reduce emissions.’”

    Labor holds only a razor thin majority in Australia thanks in part to Kevin Rudd’s various green schemes like the insulation affair where many houses burned down. The average voter will never grasp the ‘precautionary principle’ but they do understand electricity rates which are sky rocketing because of feed in tariffs of $60 cents/kwh for solar panels. New South Wales minister has just announced she is slashing the tariff to 20 cents/kwh due to billion dollar deficit the province has now incurred.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/solar-rate-cut-to-stop-costs-going-through-the-roof-20101027-173y5.html

    This disaster is headed for California in the near future.

  80. I believe in global climate change. It has been changing for the past 4,500,000,000 years (or is it 6,500 years – big numbers confuse me) and it will continue to change until the end of time.

    Any fool can see that it was warmer in the past than it is today. Show me a picture of Jesus, Gandhi or the Buddha with warm socks and a winter coat.

    Facts is facts.

  81. R. Gates says:
    “In short, the average person really knows nothing about the science or the deeper issues involved in the AGW “debate”.”
    _________________________________

    And that’s the gist of the deadliest modern disease: unsubstantiated hubris.
    Who, how, and on what basis, Mr. Gates, appointed you to be above average?
    What have you done in your life to prove it?
    You cannot even express yourself clearly in writing — but boy you are full of it!

  82. val majkus says: October 27, 2010 at 5:50 pm
    Did anyone see the article in the Australian Climate change sceptics lose battle as onus of proof It’s about the precautionary principle which I anticipate Julia Gillard will start to talk about shortly; As the article says ‘The principle appears in Article 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992. It is one of the four principles of ecologically sustainable development. Those principles have been absorbed into Australian environmental law at commonwealth and state levels since 1991.’
    “the precautionary principle operates to shift the evidentiary burden of proof as to whether there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage,”…. The author goes on to say ‘In Australia, the climate sceptics have failed.
    =============================================================
    This is indeed a worry. But if this is the case then the precautionary principle should also be applied to the economics of the situation. There is no evidence apparent or demonstrated that the present global warming will be catastrophic. It would be much easier to demonstrate that the measures taken to ‘cure’ that would indeed be catastrophic.

    Doug

  83. At October 27, 2010 at 9:36 am
    You start off with this statement:

    Interesting to see these kinds of polls. It should be remembered that public opinion is as fickle as the weather …. Best to stick with science, and realize that public perception means very little…
    ===========================================================
    So you imperiously dismiss the public. Then you go on to make yet another imperiously superior statement.

    R. Gates says: October 27, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    The average voter is far more pursuaded by emotional appeal than any facts you can present to them. and this is especially true when trying to present information as difficult and complex as climate science.
    ————————————————————————————
    Can you not recognise the hubris that you are exhibiting in these posts? It wouldn’t be so bad if you used decent grammar.

    Doug

  84. R. Gates says:

    Cool and skeptical distrust is as much an emotion as the warm and fuzzy compassion sparked by the poor stranded photoshopped polar bear– they are both at root an emotional reaction and will win far more votes than any attempt to explain the science.

    =============================

    On that you are wrong, wrong, wrong, R.

    The two just ain’t equal!!

    Logical fallacy with a capital f-ing F.

    But you go on believing that in your hard-wired, deterministic, predictable, party-line world. Nothing can penetrate that bubble, for sure.

    You have proven that, for sure.

    Believe what you want to believe. Everyone else sees it for what it is.

    Next!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    PS I am sure, as usual, you will not respond accordingly, and like an eel slipping out of the net, will wriggle away to another argument that you will try to corrupt with your pathetic sophistry.

  85. Regarding the Judith Curry poll : even if it is skewed by traffic from skeptic sites, that’s informative of itself. Presumably the AGW sites have also linked to the poll and urged voting, as this site did. But I’ve found the pro-AGW sites seem to have a defeated air about them. The commenting isn’t as passionate, they seem to have lost their zest for fight. And I’m guessing that the dwindling traffic has just about given up on answering polls to defend the cause. It’s a long time since someone posted about something on realclimate and urged people to believe it as ‘the truth from real scientists’. And even longer since someone posted something like that and wasn’t immediately ridiculed.

  86. R. Gates:

    Cool and skeptical distrust is as much an emotion as the warm and fuzzy compassion sparked by the poor stranded photoshopped polar bear– they are both at root an emotional reaction and will win far more votes than any attempt to explain the science.

    By which statement, Gates, you prove why you don’t know anything about the Scientific Method, where “cool and skeptical distrust” is in fact its very heart.

  87. Adam says:
    October 27, 2010 at 10:14 am (Edit)
    Why do 46% say it requires government action where only 34% believe in AGW?

    Good question. It seems people don’t think mankinds bulk emissions of co2 are responsible for any global warming there has been, but that we ‘have the technology’ to be able to ‘do something’ about it.

    It might be interesting to explore that with a further poll.
    What sort of government action would be best:
    1) Take co2 out of the atmosphere
    2) Geo-engineer cooling particles
    3) Offer grants for more efficient aircon systems

  88. R. Gates says:
    October 27, 2010 at 11:23 am
    their opinion is just a regurgitation of the viewpoint spewed out by their favorite “news” anchor or whatever the general attitutude or position issued forth from their particular political party. In short, the average person really knows nothing about the science or the deeper issues involved in the AGW “debate”.

    Oh really? So how come the number believing in AGW has fallen dramatically over the last 4 years?

    The American mainstream media still largely toes the ‘consensus’ line.
    The political parties haven’t changed their positions.

    So what do you think is the cause of the decline in AGW belief?

    Scientists behaving badly?
    Three cold winters?
    Catastrophe fatigue?

    A mixture of all three?

  89. R. Gates says:
    “In short, the average person really knows nothing about the science or the deeper issues involved in the AGW “debate”.”

    You forgot to mention: least of all most of those who claim to be ‘climate scientists’, like the members of the Team and all those addicted to uninterrupted grant funding.

  90. Antropogenic Global warming is becomming or has allready become the prime sociological phenomenon of our age. AGW is far less a climatological, geological or meteorological phenomenon, than a socio-political one. Polls like this one are kind of funny as much as irrelevant. The questions are stunning as far as they adress either factual circumstances or are phrased ambiguously:
    Is the earth warming?
    Yes: the earth has warmed since the peak of the last ice age maximum- after all this is an interglacial- this is non controversial. Sea levels have been rising for some centuries and may continue to do so for some time to come.
    How serious a problem?
    This has been is a serious problem for some – now submerged- areas – it is a relief for other areas. There is no evidence of an immanent threat for large populations.
    Do scientists agree that the earth is getting warmer because of human activity?
    Yes: hardly any scientist will argue that human activity has had no impact on average surface temperatures, the controversy is generally about the extent, varying from negligible to primary cause.

    Bad poles do not add up to anything anybody can use.

  91. @R.Gates: ‘Best to stick with science, and realize that public perception means very little…’

    Not something the Team or people like Connolley or 10:10 or the EPA or the UK enviro-ministry or the Met Office appear to be convinced about.

  92. Alexander Vissers says:
    October 28, 2010 at 5:04 am
    “Do scientists agree that the earth is getting warmer because of human activity?
    Yes: hardly any scientist will argue that human activity has had no impact on average surface temperatures, the controversy is generally about the extent, varying from negligible to primary cause.”

    Actually, no. Although “hardly any scientist will argue that human activity has had no impact on average surface temperatures” we do not even know whether the (small) net effect is positive or negative. CO2 emissions (probably) tend to be warming, but aerosols tend to be cooling, and land use changes can go either way.

  93. Pamela Gray says:
    October 27, 2010 at 6:03 pm
    R Gates, I can’t believe you would dismiss the people so frivolously. Have you not read that document with the preamble that begins with “We the People…”?

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    _______

    Pamela, I don’t “dismiss” people, and American Democracy (in theory) is one of the best things ever created by mankind, but American Democracy is practice has become an exercise in who can put the most money in, get’s the most money out. It would be different if the best leaders made it into office, and not just the best financed. $$ makes Washington go round, and “we the people” have very little to do with it. Major Campaign finance reform is the only solution so that “we the people” can get our full voices back, but it will never happen as it would endanger the livilhoods of the professional politicians and threaten to sever the deep seated ties between money and power that is the true form of our current plutocracy.

  94. @R.Gates: ‘Best to stick with science, and realize that public perception means very little…’

    True. I wish you would do it.

  95. JPeden says:
    October 27, 2010 at 11:35 pm
    R. Gates:

    Cool and skeptical distrust is as much an emotion as the warm and fuzzy compassion sparked by the poor stranded photoshopped polar bear– they are both at root an emotional reaction and will win far more votes than any attempt to explain the science.

    By which statement, Gates, you prove why you don’t know anything about the Scientific Method, where “cool and skeptical distrust” is in fact its very heart.
    _____

    Indeed, that may be true, but in terms of the actual basis of the scientific mind, I believe that is based on curiousity and an unwavering faith that the mysteries of the universe can open up to us and be comprehensible. Furthermore, some of the greatest “discoveries” in science were not based on the scientific method at all, but rather pure hunches and intution about the nature of things, and behind these hunches and intuiton was a faith that the cosmos could be understood by reason…an interesting nexus of emotions that had nothing to do with skepticsim.

  96. R. Gates says:
    “In short, the average person really knows nothing about the science or the deeper issues involved in the AGW “debate”.”

    To know nothing is no problem. Knowing something that ain’t so is the problem. So those fake “scientists” who think they know are the problem.

    It is really not that difficult to know, or better, to understand that CO2 is not one of the biggest players (if at all) among the factors influencing earth climate changes. In fact, I suggest that the so-called climate “scientists” have the poorest understanding of the science of earth climate changes. Because:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

  97. R. Gates says:
    October 28, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Furthermore, some of the greatest “discoveries” in science were not based on the scientific method at all, but rather pure hunches and intution about the nature of things, and behind these hunches and intuiton was a faith that the cosmos could be understood by reason…an interesting nexus of emotions that had nothing to do with skepticsim.

    ==========================================

    Where do you get off saying this “nexus of emotions” has “nothing to do with skepticism”?

    Mule fritters!

    And following your “logic” above, I am sure its even plausible that some scientific discovery is arrived at by talking out of one’s arse.

    But I’m very skeptical on that one.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  98. R. Gates says:
    October 28, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Furthermore, some of the greatest “discoveries” in science were not based on the scientific method at all, but rather pure hunches and intution about the nature of things, and behind these hunches and intuiton was a faith that the cosmos could be understood by reason…an interesting nexus of emotions that had nothing to do with skepticsim.

    Nonresponsive, Gates: the Scientific Method is what validates those “greatest discoveries”, and scepticism is its heart. Moreover, if you’re trying to say that the greatest discoveries by great scientists did not involve scepticism right from the start, especially about the “settled science”, you are most likely going to be proven wrong. Or perhaps you think that great discoveries solely involve just pulling things out of one’s arse?

  99. Pew is a leftist organization of the first order. There is no reason to trust the accuracy of this poll, even if it is reporting things you want to hear.

  100. I receive from time to time; newsletter e-mailings from the Prime-Minister of New Zealand, and a short while back I wrote him regarding the NZ ETS carbon trading scheme. Apparently under the previous long running Labour Government, NZ signed on to the Kyoto accords; and apparently the current (I believe National or multi-party ) Government is intent on continuing that. NZ gets a big black mark for its very large (per capita domestic farm animal population; largest in the world), and is not allowed to use its very extensive Forestry Farming to offset those flatulent beasts; so they are in a similar boat to the USA.

    So I pointed out to him that the wheels were coming off that chariot; and NZ could be a leader in returning to sanity.

    He did refer my letter to his Minister of Climate etc; who is an engineer by training; and I just received a courteous response from him saying in essence that the Science is settled, and they will continue with their program; and he also cited his principal science advisor. I informed his Administrative Assistant that I would nevertheless continue my efforts to point out the deficiencies in the current “concensus” science; and hopefully one day help rid the free world of this onerous and quite useless burden on their citizens.

    So we can only achieve so much; but it is well worth the effort.

    NZ has quite a few serious scientists who are not in tune with the concensus science, including Dr Vincent Gray, and Dr Chris de Freitas. So the Israelites wandered in the Sinai for 40 years, before they entered the promised land; well a typical climate interval isn’t it; but hopefully we will reach the truth earlier than that; I plan to stick around to see it.

    The present NZ Government will likely be replaced by then.

  101. “”” R. Gates says:
    October 28, 2010 at 7:17 am
    Pamela Gray says:
    October 27, 2010 at 6:03 pm
    R Gates, I can’t believe you would dismiss the people so frivolously. Have you not read that document with the preamble that begins with “We the People…”?

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    _______

    Pamela, I don’t “dismiss” people, and American Democracy (in theory) is one of the best things ever created by mankind, but American Democracy is practice has become an exercise in who can put the most money in, get’s the most money out. It would be different if the best leaders made it into office, and not just the best financed. $$ makes Washington go round, and “we the people” have very little to do with it. Major Campaign finance reform is the only solution so that “we the people” can get our full voices back, but it will never happen as it would endanger the livilhoods of the professional politicians and threaten to sever the deep seated ties between money and power that is the true form of our current plutocracy. “””

    Well the USA doesn’t have a Democracy; which is the ultimate in chaotic inertia.

    Articl IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution, says:-
    “The United States, shall guarantee to every State in this Union, a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; ……”

    However we do use some Democratic principles internally to those 57 Sovereign Republics.

  102. Is there solid evidence the Earth is warming?
    51% believe the Earth is either not warming or warming due to natural patterns.
    34% believe the Earth is warming due to human activity.
    6% believe the Earth is warming but don’t know why.
    9% Don’t know if the Earth is warming.

    How serious a problem?
    63% indicate its a somewhat to very serious problem.
    34% indicate it not too serious or is not a problem.
    3% don’t know if its a problem

    Is it a problem requiring immediate government action?
    Yes: 46%
    No: 50%
    Don’t Know: 3%

    Do scientists agree the Earth is getting warmer?
    Yes: 44%
    No: 44%
    Don’t Know: 12%

    Of those believing Global Warming is a Very Serious, Somewhat Serious, or Not Too Serious problem.

    Is there solid evidence the Earth is warming [due to human activity]?
    Tea Party Republicans: 84% No
    Republicans: 71% No
    Democrats: 31% No
    Independents: 48% No

    How serious a problem?
    Tea Party Republicans: 74% Not too serious or Not a problem
    Republicans: 57% Not too serious or Not a problem
    Democrats: 15% Not too serious or Not a problem
    Independents: 35% Not too serious or Not a problem

    Is it a problem requiring immediate government action?
    Tea Party Republicans: 39% No
    Republicans: 39% No
    Democrats: 19% No
    Independents: 31% No

    Do scientists agree the Earth is getting warmer?
    Tea Party Republicans: 71% No
    Republicans: 58% No
    Democrats: 32% No
    Independents: 45% No

  103. Which would seem to prove the theory that if you ask an uninformed person for an opinion the answer you get will be an uninformed one.
    I’m sure if you asked most of these people why muons and a neutron’s are monitored they would think you were asking something about cats rather than Cosmic ray research or the number of the general public who still confuse the ozone issue with with CO2 emissions.
    Why do those in the denier camp keep telling us that the opinions of scientists in terms of consensus doesn’t mean anything, yet you keep posting this meaningless rubbish about what the general public think which would be uninformed consensus.

Comments are closed.