While Waxman and Markey continue to try to salvage the EPA in hearings on the hill, the public shift clearly says “we aren’t buying it anymore”. This quote from Gallup last year pretty much sums it up
“In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.”
Last year:
Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated
PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.
These results are based on the annual Gallup Social Series Environment poll, conducted March 4-7 of this year. The survey results show that the reversal in Americans’ concerns about global warming that began last year has continued in 2010 — in some cases reverting to the levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago.
This year:
More Than 4 in 10 Say Seriousness of Global Warming Is Exaggerated
The plurality of Americans continue to believe the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated in the news (43%) rather than generally correct (26%) or generally underestimated (29%). This is the third year in a row that a substantial plurality has believed global warming’s effects are not as bad as they are portrayed, a departure from prior years, when Americans were about evenly split between the three points of view. The percentage who think global warming’s effects are exaggerated is down a bit from last year.
=================================================================
Last year:
For example, the percentage of Americans who now say reports of global warming are generally exaggerated is by a significant margin the highest such reading in the 13-year history of asking the question. In 1997, 31% said global warming’s effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48%.
Fewer Americans Think Effects of Global Warming Are Occurring
“In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.”
Many global warming activists have used film and photos of melting ice caps and glaciers, and the expanding reach of deserts, to drive home their point that global warming is already having alarming effects on the earth. While these efforts may have borne fruit over much of the 2000s, during the last two years, Americans’ convictions about global warming’s effects have waned.
A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming’s effects have already begun or will begin shortly.
Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).
The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.
This year:
While Americans’ self-professed understanding of global warming has increased over time — from 69% saying they understand the issue “very well” or “fairly well” in 2001, to 74% in 2006 and 80% in the current poll — their concern about global warming across several measures is generally in the lower range of what Gallup has found historically.
For example, 49% currently believe the effects of global warming have already begun to happen, similar to last year’s estimate and one point above the historical low from 1997. Just three years ago, 61% thought the effects were already occurring. Over the same time, the percentage doubting global warming’s effects will ever happen has increased, from 11% to nearly 20%, including 18% this year.
==================================================================
Last year:
Americans Divided on Causes of Global Warming
In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.
This year:
Read the entire poll story from 2010 here
…and from 2011 here
======================================================
NOTE: The first published version of this article was incomplete and did not have comparisons from last year’s poll to this year as was intended. This was a consequence of have two browser windows open with editing capabilities, side by side, so I could do comparisons and then cut and paste portions, and the wrong one got published accidentally. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused in the 45 minutes or so the incomplete story was up. – Anthony
great
This means when I go out in public…
……half the people I see are crackers
REPLY: I’m sure they look at you the same way- Anthony
That’s a helluva of hockey stick. Me like.
Anthony,
If they only knew how much “uncertainty” has been manipulated into a “sure thing”.
Climate science has absolutely no desire to look at this planets actual physical mechanics to understand how climate has a great deal of mechanical processes happening.
REPLY: I’m sure they look at you the same way- Anthony
=======================================
I doubt it
They don’t seem to be that aware………………
REPLY: But not delusional.
Did not Lincoln say something about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time?
Looks like he was on the money.
Joe Romm has a slightly different spin on this Poll!
REPLY: Well, that’s what the Center for American Progress pays him for, “spin”. – Anthony
That last question is very poorly worded. Most scientists clearly accept that the world has warmed, the question is the attributed cause. They should be asking the public:
Just your impression, which one of the following statements do you think is most accurate — most scientists agree that humans are the primary cause or the largest cause for global warming, or most scientists do not agree on what the primary cause is, or most scientists agree that human emissions are not the primary cause.
People recognize rationizations when they see them. First it was heavy snow was caused by global warming then it was earthquakes that could be related to global warming. By tieing every big event to a single cause with some sort of “scientific justification” credibility goes out the window. The conformists are shooting themselves in the foot with a machine gun.
The truth will out.
Do the politicians absorb these opinion poll figures and mark them?
The day is dawning, when the public will say: “enough, I do not want my hard earned taxes spent on worse than useless; biofuel subsidies, wind turbines [and the rest].”
And that, “I do not want to have my company skewered [put out of business] by carbon emissions taxes in order, to support a political scam and supposedly prevent what is an: environmentalist inspired supposition – of an atmospherically impossible fiction.”
It’s all in the [or not] the feedback man….. .
It appears that `All of the people, some of the time` will be the alarmists epitaph.
REPLY: But not delusional.
============================
rotfl yep
Have fun I have to go to work and herd liberals for the rest of the day………
I’m not sure I understand the question – when I read “do you believe most scientists believe global warming is occurring”, I’m inclined to reply ‘you’ve only asked half a question’. Anybody can look at temperature records from the last 100 years and see that there is a warming trend. That does nothing to answer the question of whether human activity has anything to do with the warming. Even if Gallup had asked whether the person being polled believed that ‘most scientists’ believe that the warming trend is largely anthropogenic in nature, that does nothing to answer the question of degree.
I usually trust Gallup, but it surely looks like even they are prone to asking questions that they themselves don’t really understand.
[sarc] Maybe if The Hockey Team, et al. could just figure out how to reframe their talking points, they would get their message across better… [/sarc]
The believers like to brandish their hockey stick – perhaps the skeptics should wield this as a boomerang.
Given the press coverage in the 90’s or rather how one sided it was a balancing of opinions as new information comes into the open is almost inevitable. The issues surrounding the science and the way it was used have also caught peoples attention.
Perhaps now we can have a rational discussion and determine a method of finding out what is actually happening
I don’t understand why this blogpost is about a Gallup Poll taken 1 year ago, when there are results from this years poll are available!
ttp://www.gallup.com/poll/146606/Concerns-Global-Warming-Stable-Lower-Levels.aspx
The percentage who believe human activity is responsible for global warming actually increased from 50 a year ago to 52%, while the percent who believe that global warming is caused by natural environment decreased from 46% to 43%.
The poll shows that political party affiliation is driving the people’s beliefs about what is a scientific issue.
Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity. One would think that responsible political leaders would go with the opinions of the scientists who study the subject, but it appears that the Republicans don’t want to accept what for them is ideologically and “Inconvenient Truth”.
Well, you can probably expect that if the human experience is no warming in close to 14 years!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/trend
For those whining about cherry picking, yes, yes, I did. But it doesn’t change the fact that its there. Oh, you want to see the warming without the 98 El Nino? Sure! Here’s the latest decadal trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
The reason why the faith is slipping is because reality is slapping humanity in the face.
They forgot what I believe to be an important question: “Do you even give a rats rump anymore?”
Perhaps I am still just a tad bit angry at Climate
ScienceLying after my latest barrage of climate readings. Fortunately for me, I work in a scientific field where it is very difficult to lie. It either works or it doesn’t, you can’t fudge it.I have become one very bitter individual at all the damage to real science that this climate con game has caused. Something that I don’t think I will soon be able to put aside, and I’m angry about that.
The questions they should have been asking are:
1. Do you believe burning carbon based fuels is contributing to global warming?
2. If so, to what extent?
a. less than 5%
b. 5 to 20%
c. greater than 20%
3. What amount are you willing to pay to reduce the burning of carbon based fuels.
a. less than $100/year
b. between $100/year and $1000/year
c. more than $1000/year
These are questions elected representitives would like to know.
The Stanford polls, of US public opinion of global warming, indicates that a larger fraction the public accepts the existence of AGW and supports action to fix it than the Gallup poll.
http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/Global-Warming-Survey-Selected-Results-June2010.pdf
Based on this poll, 76% of Americans believe that the government should regulate greenhouse gases.
You have to wonder, do the politicians actually look at these polls? Or if they look at them do they somehow convince themselves that they don’t count? There’s no other explanation for the disconnect between policy makers and the public.
In the UK, you have all three main parties pushing for anti-co2 policies as if they were talking about a ‘flags for orphans’ program (to borrow a Simpson’s example of a ‘too popular to fail’ bill). I think politicians spend too much time surrounded by lobbyists from Greenpeace and WWF and have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated that what people want is the government to ‘tackle climate change’. In the end there will be a quantum shift in perception, sort of like the quantum shift in market perception that suddenly happens at the onset of a bear market.
We live in hope.
I think the point of this poll very important. It shows that a large portion of the US people have recognized that CAGW is highly unlikely and that the effects of CO2 and other GHG have been overstated. Add to that the fact that GAT hasn’t continued to increase for the last 10-15 years and the AGW hypothesis I think Dr. Pielke Sr.’s take on AGW is pretty reasonable- people do many things that affect the climate, we don’t really know by how much, the focus on CO2 is way overdone, and climate modelling doesn’t do a useful job of predicting anything and use the wrong metric. How much heat( in joules, deltaT*heat capacity) in the climate system is much more important and very poorly known.
I wonder if the wording of the questions has changed over the years. I am, as always, extremely cautious and perhaps skeptical when reading about polls.
Good point by Squidly as to just how much damage has been done to real science by this chicanery. This entire scam has been perpetrated by a group of fringe academics with political connections, and they chose to pursue their own aggrandizement at the expense of all else. Since they never cared for actual “Science” they had no inhibitions about pursuing a path that would burn the reputation of the entire field to the ground if they were wrong.
In effect, they chose to risk the credibility of science itself on their own pet project, and threatened to drag everyone else down with them if things didn’t work out their way. Perversely, this added pressure on reputable scientists to go along, because they could be accused of damaging the credibility of “science” if they didn’t.
Now their ship has hit the proverbial Iceberg, and everyone else has got to scramble to the few lifeboats left. Tossing the clowns who started this mess overboard is a very good first step.
also – interesting to note in the first graph that the segment that believes that “Warming already has happened or is happening now” (ie, Hansen groupies) is down to a constant 10%, a pretty good estimation of the fringe/crank segment on any given issue today. That’s who the warmists represent.
Squidly says:
March 16, 2011 at 6:27 am
They forgot what I believe to be an important question: “Do you even give a rats rump anymore?”
=================================================
Well that’s just about it, no one does much anymore. Oh sure, there’s still plenty of us to fill blog roles and whatnot, but for the average citizen, the alarmist bs is all they’ve heard their entire lives. And nothing has happened. So much so, that now alarmists are stretching for any event to be tied to CAGW.(or whatever). They’ve invalidated themselves with their dire predictions. They’ve screamed it so much for so long, the average person has simply tuned them out. They’re little more than background noise. And when the shrill becomes loud enough for the average person to notice, they find the noise of full of fabrication, double talk, omission of facts….etc…
Squidly, as to your profession, you should be angry. The leaders in real scientific fields sat idly by and let these charlatans incessantly blather their pseudo-science. They are as much to blame as the charlatans. And that makes me angry, too.
Maybe climate change policy is like Hadacol, the cure for aches and pain sold in a bottle. It was very popular, eased pain and was 12 percent alcohol.
Of course it was also a headache sold off the drug store shelf and only cured the desire for booze without going to the tavern where the booze was properly manufactured and legally advertised, taxed and sold for what it was, an intoxicating drink.
Eventually people quit buying it and Hadacol went the way of other snake oil remedies.
Like all thorough-going sceptics, I believe the Gallup questions to be poorly worded and do not address the anthropegenic component of so-called AGW. Anyone would have to be incredibly unaware if they didn’t know there has been warming on a global scale as the earth recovered from the LIA but temps have shown no statistically significant increase in the past decade and currently appear to be in a slight decline. I find most polls to be either carelessly worded and thus incapable of giving an accurate result or deliberately constructed to avoid arriving at accuracy; yer takes yer pick.
Poor questions lead to poor answers. I agree with those who think the debate needs to be reframed:
1. How much warming has there been? (in last century? In last millennium?)
2. What are the causes? (correlation with CO2 poor, in fact no one knows the answer and that is why we need good science.)
3. Is there reason to believe warming will accelerate and become catastrophic? (ie are the net feedbacks positive or negative? (The stability of the Earth’s climate for eons argues the feedbacks are net negative)
4. Is moderate warming a net good or net harm—-to humans and/or the more general biosphere? (The fossil record and history say net good.)
KW
Jeremy says:
March 16, 2011 at 5:51 am
“That last question is very poorly worded. Most scientists clearly accept that the world has warmed, the question is the attributed cause. They should be asking the public:”
We should have moved beyond the question of “most scientists.” Warmista have used the concept for unabashed propagandizing. Richard Muller (see Youtube) and associates are presently at work demonstrating that the most famous of “most scientists” engaged in dishonesty when they created and promoted and apologized for the hockey stick.
There is certain percentage of the population that are going to believe in AGW no matter what the facts really are. It’s almost a desire to think something bad about mankind, almost a form of self loathing of our race.
The percentage varies depending on the subject of the poll between 20 and 30 percent.
For example Obama is still receiving a “strongly approves” rating from 20% of the population even as he gets ready to jet off to South America despite the worlds current situation.
I suspect that the same 20% would still strongly approve if he declared martial law in the US and declared himself president for life.
Thirty-one Republicans on the House Energy And Commerce Committee — the entire Republican contingent on the panel — declined on Tuesday to vote in support of the very idea that climate change exists.
Democrats on the panel had suggested three amendments that said climate change is a real thing, is caused by humans and has potentially dire consequences for the future. … The global scientific community is in near unanimous agreement that climate change is real, and that humans contribute to it.
None of the 31 Republicans on the committee would vote yes on any of the amendments (Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN] declined to vote on one.) The committee’s 21 Democrats voted yes on all three.
“Here’s the latest decadal trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
”
I like that decadal trend. I think it is very likely the decline will get steeper in the next years/decades.
And in line with this… See the Patrick Moore Video On Fox News… He discusses Global Warming and energy
This is a MUST SEE!
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4503674/greenpeace-founder-questions-global-warming/
They are way out to lunch on batteries and GeoThermal — but what the heck!
IMO He is right you know — politics and manipulation
I wonder why the hockey stick starts at 2006? Most of the publicly available sources of info haven’t changed much in those years. Valid info has been available on the web since 1990, and false info has been available everywhere else since 1990. The Climategate revelations were in 2009, and received exactly zero coverage in mass media, so they can’t be the important factor.
Could it be that the last 5 years have featured very hard winters in most of the places where people live? Every year has a bad winter someplace, but urban areas have been hit steadily with serious cold in those years, causing more people to examine the valid info and discount the false info.
Just to be clear, I do not wish global cooling, but I think a bit of cooling is necessary to bring back some real science and stop the hysteria, which is worse and causes more damage than cooling.
One way or the other, we can not do anything about it.
Americans can see with their own eyes the failed prediction about milder Northern Hemisphere winters. Now they are being told that the cold and snow are really signs of global warming. Total crap.
Here is what we were told then and now.
June 4, 1999
“Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html
Nov. 17, 2010
“Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013568
How can anyone falsify this two-way-bet?
I wonder what question Gallup will ask should we be prolonged cooling?
Ah, if only polling data had anything to do with the reality of what were really happening with the earth’s climate. For example, how many people believe in ghosts or that the end of the world is coming in 2012? Certainly it’s nice to know what the polls say for those who would like to influence the politics of climate change, but the lesson of history is that perceptions often have very little correlation one way or another with reality…and the herd is a likely to be wrong on an issue as right.
Unfortunately, at this time in American history, all that polls can indicate is the effect of the white hot fury that the MSM has created from the most recent natural disaster. In the case of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the MSM, now including Fox, changed the topic from the natural disaster and its effects on the Japanese people to the nuclear power industry. Apparently, the MSM have developed the ability to identify the spin that will most increase the tendencies toward hysteria and panic that exist in the public. The storyline of impending nuclear meltdown was always an illusion. There was no reason whatsoever to believe that the nuclear facilities would explode or release a significant amount of radiation. Yet the MSM grabbed this storyline and holds it today. Either all of the MSM are fools or they are deliberately exploiting public nervousness about all things nuclear and the climate. In doing so, they have created a panic of historic proportions. (By panic, I mean such things as Germany backing off from nuclear power, Senator Lieberman calling for a moratorium, etc.) This is Yellow Journalism turned White Hot Fury Journalism. This bodes ill for the future of civilization.
If the MSM support Obama in 2012 then there is no question he will win, unless he self-destructs, something that is likely. We have just seen the power of the MSM and we have learned that there is nothing in the public arena to oppose it. Our rulers are now chosen by masters of hysteria and panic.
Between now and November 2012, look for the MSM to grab every environmental news event and to promote Greenie spin with the same apocalyptic fervor that they have promoted nuclear disaster in Japan. Expect public opinion to swing toward the view that manmade CO2 is the devil.
There are a number of reasons for this “uncertainty” which includes “contradictory evidence.”
I am working on a list of about 30 papers, abstracts and IPCC reports which not just ‘appear‘ contradict each other but come to opposite conclusions. I hope Anthony allows me to post the list up by the end of the month. Here is a taste. ;O)
Northern Hemisphere winters warmer [Gavin Schmidt et. al.]
Northern Hemisphere winters colder ;O)
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Malaria may increase
Malaria may continue decreasing in a warming world!
Malaria to increase in Burundi
Malaria to decline in Burundi [via sciencedaily]
UK to get more droughts
UK to get more rain
They know they need to do a better job selling what they prefer to call “climate change”.
To that end, a TV and movie producer by the name of Marshall Herskovitz is working on a multi-tiered campaign involving an “absolute ‘A-Team’ of people”, and “a lot of money”: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00010&segmentID=7
Unfortunately for the Warmistas, the harder they try to sell it, the less people want to buy what they’re selling.
Herskovitch: “…we need to hit people over the head. We need people to act right now, and we need people to act in a huge manner. It’s very hard to get across to people the scale at which we have to act.” Sounds like he’s going with the advice of Stephen Schneider who fifteen years ago, said “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” Yeah, that’ll work.
Given that some of the people who come to this website argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, the results of this poll ar enot surprising.
Since Gallup polled from March 6 to 13 last year, that means they’ve done this year’s survey, probably. I wonder how soon its results will be out. A month from now?
Whoever said that ‘there are no stupid questions’ obviously never read that poll.
Interesting example of the way in which statistics are viewed as solid, whereas in fact they are +/- quite a bit. The last couple of years are certainly within the same wiggle room for those questioned, when they are questioned and how strongly they hold the answer they gave.
Basically half of all people are not convinced, but half the people are that AGW is real and some level of CAGW is real. That’s not trivial. Elections that lead to national wars are decided over much less.
You are right. I always tried to make that point in the past, “consensus is meaningless.” But the argument never seems to die, everyone wants to argue by authority.
I think the AGW hand has been way over played. The claims are too abstract, people just don’t see it. It’s not just global warming but news reports in general, every hour, on the hour, highlighting some report about how what we eat, breathe and do will kill us, make us unhappy, poorer, whatever. I think it’s our nature to cut out this noise, too much information that we can’t do anything about.
Eat, drink and be merry!
eadler says:
“Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity.”
Enough with your 97% nonsense. It has been repeatedly debunked, yet you cling to it like a drowning man clings to a stick. You couldn’t get a poll where 97% believed Hitler was a bad guy. But you actually believe that 97% of scientists believe humans cause global warming? Get a grip.
This is a sad statement, because there is no rational reason why people should be failing to grasp the “seriousness” of climate change and global warming.The vast majority of working scientists and the entire world’s Academies of Science are aware of this seriousness and they have given us enough evidence to alert us to problems ahead. It is tragic that anyone can reject this evidence and that a do-nothing, business-as-usual approach is being supported. Our children and grandchildren will not forgive us.
Is there a trend? Anomalies? Is there a computer model? Does it predict a further rise in non-consensus due to positive feedback from near-fraudulent studies being exposed? How about the feedbacks from failure to agree with the real world and failures to predict…. well, a lot of things?
Hugh Pepper says…
With Japans nuclear problems you can kiss it all goodbye then. If what you believe is true, there is no possibilty of mitigation without nuclear power. And you think we’re deluded….
Hugh Pepper says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:39 am
This is a sad statement, because there is no rational reason why people should be failing to grasp the “seriousness” of climate change and global warming.The vast majority of working scientists and the entire world’s Academies of Science are aware of this seriousness and they have given us enough evidence to alert us to problems ahead. It is tragic that anyone can reject this evidence and that a do-nothing, business-as-usual approach is being supported. Our children and grandchildren will not forgive us.
_______________________________________________
I am one who believes global warming is real and partly human induced. However, the way the “team” and others have doged difficult questions, hyped a consensus, silenced valid criticism, censored inquieris in RC.org, refused to be honest about the huge uncertainties of GCMs and overstated certainty and concensus in almost every aspect, deeply troubles me.
They have actually told us long ago that their models predict near-impossible scenarios for the near future. The feeble attempts at mitigation and opposition to viable options such as nuclear energy made me a pessimist long ago. Mann will show you a hockey stick and ask for your tax dollars to prove that “it’s ever worse than you thought” and then refuse to participate in debates posing the tough questions.
Give me a very good, understandable and realistic way to avoid the GCM-predicted scenarios? Is there any way in which it could be done without causing mass poverty on the basis of very simple GCMs?
I believe the evidence points to a human component in GW. I don’t believe it shows anything as catastrophic as Gore will have me believe, and I think the GCMs are fundamentally flawed and limited in predicting actual climate trends.
And based on this same poll, 78% oppose taxes on electricity to pay for it, and 71% oppose taxes on gasoline to pay for it. So find another way. That’s nice that you demonstrated people are well-meaning, but try to hit their pocketbooks with unproven speculation and see how long your argument lasts.
Can you not read all the red sub-headlines in this post that say “last year” and “this year” ?? The link you posted is what was used for this post as a comparison.
And Mars is made of cheese. Speaking of some fantasy poll with no information or sourcing as to who did it and how is about as meaningless as air conditioning in the arctic.
Attitude Surveys
The whole idea of giving people statements to agree or disagree with on a matter as complex as this is flawed. They should be given open-ended questions like “What do YOU think about the debate about global warming that’s being going on for the past couple of decades?” and then be nudged to give full answers which can later be assessed and categorized.
But of course, this is a very expensive means of polling. It involves interviewers actually writing stuff down and someone analysing the mass of opinion produced.
MUCH cheaper and quicker to give them a couple of statements to agree or disagree with. Ask a leading question, get a cr*p answer and get the results into the media next day! Never mind the quality feel the width!
Hugh Pepper says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:39 am
“This is a sad statement, because there is no rational reason why people should be failing to grasp the “seriousness” of climate change and global warming.”
Have you visited Youtube and seen Richard Muller’s criticisms of the hockey stick. Just go to Youtube and search on “Richard Muller climate.” I would really like to hear what you have to say about his video. Yes, the climate might be warming but that does not change the fact that Mann, Jones, and The Team lied in a blatant and indefensible way. If people fail to believe in what you perceive to be a climate emergency, a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of The Team. I would like to see you give them the upbraiding that they deserve. Do it here.
Per Willis’ excellent post How Much Would You Buy? Posted on March 13, 2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/13/how-much-would-you-buy/
The working question should be –
Per EPA’s data the cost for regulating CO2 the new regulations will cost US$78 billion per year and will result in global mean temperature estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100. Do you think this – (rotated)
a- Too little.
b- Just right.
c- Too much
d- They really want to take how much of my money
Then ask how much you would pay.
eadler says:
March 16, 2011 at 6:14 am
The percentage who believe human activity is responsible for global warming actually increased from 50 a year ago to 52%, while the percent who believe that global warming is caused by natural environment decreased from 46% to 43%.
Gallup shows a +/- 4 & 5 percent. This results in ‘no statistical difference.
The poll shows that political party affiliation is driving the people’s beliefs about what is a scientific issue.
And 20% of the polled have — have not very well, or not at all or no opinion in understanding this issue? So they only listen to MSM spin.
Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity. One would think that responsible political leaders would go with the opinions of the scientists who study the subject, but it appears that the Republicans don’t want to accept what for them is ideologically and “Inconvenient Truth”.
With a confidence interval of 4% and confidence level 95% the 79 participants in the referenced poll equates to a population of 91.
From Willis’ excellent post How Much Would You Buy? Posted on March 13, 2011
The real question should be – EPA wants to regulate CO2 to control global warming. Per their data the new regulations will cost US$78 billion per year. This will result in global mean temperature to be reduced by an estimated 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.
Do you believe this to be (questions rotated)
a – Too little
b- Just right
c- Too much
d- Are you kidding US$1,900 trillion dollars for each measly degree of cooling.
eadler says:
March 16, 2011 at 6:14 am
The percentage who believe human activity is responsible for global warming actually increased from 50 a year ago to 52%, while the percent who believe that global warming is caused by natural environment decreased from 46% to 43%.
Gallup shows a 4 & 5% error rate, so statistically speaking, it is no change.
Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity. One would think that responsible political leaders would go with the opinions of the scientists who study the subject, but it appears that the Republicans don’t want to accept what for them is ideologically and “Inconvenient Truth”.
At a confidence interval of 4% and confidence level of 95% this poll works out to a population size of 91. Since 20% of the responses said they understand this issue not very well, or not at all, or no opinion, I would like to see the results without their MSM driven opinion.
The believers need to further answer:
Is the magnitude of AGW:
–Academic trivia
–Measurable, but not serious
–Serious, but we can live with it
—Catastrophic
Many scientists believe we’ve cause a bit of warming. Only those with an agenda see a catastrophe in the works.
Hugh Pepper says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:39 am
Our children and grandchildren will not forgive us.
Yes they will, because, contrary to what the Climate Koolaid drinking Alarmists want, people are becoming more and more skeptical of their claims, and are putting the kibosh on things like Cap n’ Trade and other schemes that would do nothing except drive up energy costs and make everyone poorer. And, I’m guessing they wouldn’t like that so much. They will also appreciate the extra C02 helping plants, and adding to our food supply. They will certainly wonder about the sanity of those who demonized C02.
eadler says:
The poll shows that political party affiliation is driving the people’s beliefs about what is a scientific issue.
Repeat this to yourself:
“Correlation is not causation”
Until you understand what it means.
Then you’ll be one step ahead of “etal”
Ok, so this was going to be a short comment on the Cap and Trade scheme, but I got…uh…sort’a carried away. So, here it goes.
With all due respect to my all my scientifically-inclined friends here, and keeping in mind the importance of good science, the real bottom line is that this battle is not being fought as a scientific dispute, but as a war of ideas and ideals…an “information war,” as it were. Just look at the staggering chain of ideas the world-wide public was successfully managed into accepting: 1) that the world is warming; 2) that this warming is very bad; 3) that humankind is responsible for this warming; 4) that man-made CO2 is the cause of this very bad global warming; 5) that we can stall or roll-back the warming curve by limiting CO2 emissions on a personal, national and global level; 6) that the UN and compliant national governments can best manage and control CO2 emissions, thus preventing the bad global warming and valiantly saving the entire world.
Yup, this sure was a tall order and yet, somehow, in spite of the self-evident kookiness and cockiness of the core narrative, or web of narratives, the AGW meme hummed along very nicely for about two decades. Starting off as a commercially and politically-driven ideology with strong mystical and even messianic overtones, the AGW campaign successfully co-opted what turns out to be a rather smallish number of scientists who, with the help of authoritative organizations and flashy celebrities were able to convince and recruit folks like me; we, the unwashed scientific semi-literates and socio-economic plebes who treated AGW as the received and infallible faith and saw its supporting structures, in the form of popular environmentalism, as the “good works” required of all good people. This scheme worked not because the science was convincing to an otherwise un-scientific majority, but because it successfully enlisted the cooperation and enthusiasm of nearly all important sectors of our societies through powerful and well-coordinated marketing campaigns. If we play the historian and psychologist, we can better understand how instilling terror on one hand and providing hope (“with certain conditions”) on the other, all greased with billions of dollars, can so easily forge universal agreement and cooperation by the majority…scientists included. We can even see this nasty process as an ambitious and nearly-successful attempt to create the first artificial “hydraulic super-civilization,” in this case not one built upon control over water, but over the control of a by-product of our civilization.
A clue to the origins and energy source of what we should, without hesitation, call a brazen scam, is that what burst this AGW bubble is not just the exposure of the shoddy pseudoscience behind it, but the unexpected impact of the low-cost home PC and the “viral” growth of the Internet. These made the awareness and the battle against bad science and corrupt politics possible and doable in the first place. The PC and the ‘Net effectively challenged the high priesthood monopolies on knowledge and information as surely as a sudden, magical appearance of plentiful and widely distributed sources of clean water would have challenged and destroyed the dynastic autocracies of ancient Egypt or Mohenjo-Daro. Those who launched and developed the AGW bubble obviously couldn’t predict, much less control the revolutionary effects of this sudden and world-wide decentralization of information. Anyone who is a fan of sci-fi can attest that even the most imaginative writers out there failed to see this one coming. (As an entertaining aside, any “Dunies” out there may note that Frank Hebert of the *Dune* series rightly anticipated the unpredictable messiness of “thinking machines” in his tales, and very cleverly “banned” them in his fictional future universe.)
Let’s remember that twenty years ago, Watts Up with That would not have been possible, and ditto for the thousands of independent minds able to reach millions of ordinary and not-so-ordinary people out there through the Internet. Let’s also remember that science and information technologies by themselves are of little use without healthy civic, democratic and open societies. This is why the warmist myth failed as a monopoly and why AGW is in palliative care, with its beneficiaries looking for the most dignified exit and least destructive way to suck up the losses. The science was and is crucial in this drama, but the sudden explosion of un-controlled information revealed the ideological and financial underpinnings of the AGW scam and drove the proverbial stake through its heart. Most people may not understand graphs and proxies, but they can surely smell a rat. What also changed is that unlike the halcyon days of two decades ago, the UN is now seen as fundamentally untrustworthy and corrupt, and that the “green” sector is no longer seen as the brave new frontier led by cool, well-meaning hippies, but by powerful, connected and wealthy organizations and corporations. This is why the first victim of the AGW bubble-burst is the preposterous Cap and Trade scheme. No longer a wise and necessary measure by our well-meaning superiors, it is rightly viewed as a clever and bold attempt to institute controls and management of our industry and free enterprise systems by power and wealth-hungry national governments and the failing and irredeemably politicized and corrupt United Nations.
So, to finally put a “cap” on my own lengthy jeremiad, I’d like to humbly suggest that to finally scotch this global scam, the “softer,” social or human, sciences should perhaps be included in the struggle. Economics, political science, sociology, geography, historiography, anthropology and even psychology, religion and art can play a greater role in what is no less than an epic and literally, a life-or-death battle over an attempt to control of human behaviour, production, trade and governments. And, as influential and wealthy as the proponents of this unraveling scam may be, the combined effect of thousands of independent intellectuals, activists and communicators working in free societies can, as we can see, slay this greedy dragon and make sure that it’ll be hard for others to appear.
Alright, I’m off my soap box now, so thanks for your heroic patience, folks!
It’s odd to lump “happening already” together with “will start soon” – because “will start soon” means “not happening already”.
Like adding “started my diet” to “will start my diet some time soon”.
For me, and likely a lot of the general public, the climate gate scandal has left me feeling betrayed. The disregard for the scientific method alluded to in the communications released leaves me no choice but to question the output of the models that man made CO2 (let alone natural CO2, solar radiation, etc.) is an immediate danger to mankind. In fact, if the e-mails had bent sent to the FDA, under the whistleblower laws, an evaluation of the DATA, and the process(es) leading to “hiding the decline”, would likely be undertaken to see if the results of the means of correcting the data had an intent (motive) leading to what would legally fall under a False claims per: “21 U.S.C. § 331 : US Code – Section 331: Prohibited act
(q)((2) With respect to any device, the submission of any report that
is required by or under this chapter that is false or misleading in
any material respect.” mm comment- a device can be considered software and the output of the software.
By calling the Science settled the general public has been lead to believe the stage of Knowledge of the factors influencing climate (and mankind’s effect on it) are known with a fair amount of certainty. For me for the Science to be settled our knowledge needs to be at stage 4, at a minimum, in R. Bohn’s Stages of Knowledge as noted
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/1994-fall/3615/measuring-and-managing-technological-knowledge/
Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge
By Roger E. Bohn, October 15, 1994 Sloan Management Review, Fall 1994, pp 61-73
“Knowledge is power.” — Francis Bacon
“As we move from the industrial age into the information age, knowledge is becoming an ever more central force behind the competitive success of firms and even nations. Nonaka has commented, “In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge.”1 Philosophers have analyzed the nature of knowledge for millennia; in the past half-century, cognitive and computer scientists have pursued it with increased vigor.
But it has turned out that information is much easier to store, describe, and manipulate than is knowledge. One consequence is that, although an organization’s knowledge base may be its single most important asset, its very intangibility makes it difficult to manage systematically.2
The goal of this paper is to present a framework for measuring and understanding one particular type of knowledge: technological knowledge, i.e., knowledge about how to produce goods and services.
stage Name Comment Typical Form of Knowledge
1 Complete Ignorance – Nowhere
2 Awareness Pure Art Tacit
3 Measure Pretechnological Written
4 Control the Mean Scientific Method feasible Written and embodied in hardware
5 Process Capability Local recipe Hardware and operating manual
6 Process Characterization Tradeoffs to reduce costs Empirical equations (numerical)
7 Know Why Science Scientific formulas and algorithums
8 Complete Knowledge Nirvana “
The talking point for the alarmists has been that 2010 was the ‘warmist year on record’. They couldnt say that warming is accelerating because it hasnt warmed since 1998. Next year will be a completely different story. Troposheric temperatures have plunged much more than they expected and with the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) still near record high, temperatures should continue to plunge and stay low at least untill August if you believe that global temps lag the SOI by seven months.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
Smokey says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:32 am
eadler says:
“Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity.”
Enough with your 97% nonsense. It has been repeatedly debunked, yet you cling to it like a drowning man clings to a stick. You couldn’t get a poll where 97% believed Hitler was a bad guy. But you actually believe that 97% of scientists believe humans cause global warming? Get a grip.
==========================
Yes, indeed. I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it. It saddens me that people will stoop to such levels to manipulate the truth for their own ends. Of course, eadler makes no mention of the poll of 30,000 scientists who were against the notion of AGW.
Simple arithmetic shows these claims to be nonsense, since less than 100 of respondents could be classed as climate scientists. That would leave 3 scientists who disapproved of the motion. But I can think of at least Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Pielke, Baliunus, Scafetta, Douglass, Loehle, Tisdale who are also against the motion. The number 97% is so ridiculous that even a politician would be embarrased to make such a statement. It is just jaw droppingly nuts.
Response to Theo Goodwin:
There is a vast body of well researched data, including paleoclimate findings, which support the case for the relationship between CO2 and warming. Even though the “climategate” folks have been exonerated in several independent reviews, the fact remains that the case they have been making has been independently confirmed by the research of many others. Alternative scenarios have been thoroughly debunked. eg Lindzen et al. There are still many who are making rhetorical arguments, expressing their “skepticism”, but they have no science to confirm their positions.
If there is a disconfirming position which can be borne out by researched findings, this should be presented immediately in the accepted forums.
Hugh Pepper,
Every one of your statements is wrong. Just so you know.
I’ll deconstruct later, gotta run an errand.
Hugh Pepper,
“There is a vast body of well researched data, including paleoclimate findings, which support the case for the relationship between CO2 and warming.”
What data are you referring to? On geological time scales there is no correlation between co2 levels and temperatures. Eg, the late Ordovician ice age occurred at a time of co2 levels rising to 5000 ppm.
You claim that sceptics have ‘no science to back their claims’, yet the claims are based on the lack of science of the AGW camp. Lack of evidence such as the missing heat, the debunking of the hockey sticks (several times), the lack of warming over the last decade, and the refutation of models that are based on hypothetical assumptions. No scientist has yet produced any evidence to show that warming is predominately caused by co2, and that is why sceptics are sceptical. And so should you be.
Mr Pepper this is science (from a pro AGW site BTW)
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
It just ain’t warming, I’m Afraid. Please stick to climate/weather data.
Hugh Pepper says:
March 16, 2011 at 2:36 pm
You did not address my question. I did not expect that you would. However, I will try again. Given the specific claims about the hockey stick made in Richard Muller’s video, how do you respond to them? Were Mann, Jones, and The Team dishonest? I am asking for your response to these questions. Please do not respond if you have no response to these questions.
Hugh Pepper,
Smokey will indeed “deconstruct” later…and once more, it will be amusing, but not to worry, he’s “deconstructed” on me many times as I’m one of the few “warmist” regulars here.
richcar1225 says:
March 16, 2011 at 1:26 pm
The talking point for the alarmists has been that 2010 was the ‘warmist year on record’. They couldnt say that warming is accelerating because it hasnt warmed since 1998. Next year will be a completely different story. Troposheric temperatures have plunged much more than they expected and with the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) still near record high, temperatures should continue to plunge and stay low at least untill August if you believe that global temps lag the SOI by seven months.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
_____
Funny, you say we’ve not seen any warming since 1998, and yet, the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on instrument record. How that work out? Also, of course tropos temps have fallen this year with a La Nina. And, I’ve noticed the AGW skeptics haven’t be crowing this year about the Arctic Sea ice, since is has been at or very near record low extent all winter and the Arctic Temps have been running warm all winter. How that work out if we’re headed for a big global cooling. Shouldn’t the Arctic cool too and the sea ice begin to at least get back to normal, (which it hasn’t been at since 2004)?
It seems skeptics are reaching desperately at anything to try and pull attention from the longer term trends (decadal or longer) which are all pretty much in-line with the general trends shown in the GCMs, to focus on shorter term weather events. Some here would find it in their interest to visit this brand new climate blog, officially approved by NASA, if you want to get an another opinion:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/
Mark Miller says:
March 16, 2011 at 12:32 pm
For me, and likely a lot of the general public, the climate gate scandal has left me feeling betrayed.
___
Nope, the general public could care less about the so-call climategate “scandal”. As I commented on here many times, those who frequent climate related blogs (myself included) are pretty much way way out of the mainstream general public.
R. Gates says:
March 16, 2011 at 4:18 pm
“Funny, you say we’ve not seen any warming since 1998, and yet, the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on instrument record. How (sic) that work out?”
I don’t have to time to produce the actual record, but it is quite easy to show how that would work out. All the years 1990-2009 have the same temperature except for 1997 which is lower. That way the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest of all and there has been no warming since 1998.
Hugh Pepper’s comments are in italics:
There is a vast body of well researched data, including paleoclimate findings, which support the case for the relationship between CO2 and warming.
Maybe there’s a halfvast body of grant-chasing papers and GIGO computer output, but one thing is missing: empirical evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming. The only observed relationship between CO2 and temperature shows that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, not vice versa. Thus, CO2 is a function of rising temperatures, not a cause.
Even though the “climategate” folks have been exonerated in several independent reviews, the fact remains that the case they have been making has been independently confirmed by the research of many others.
Independent?!? Only the cognizant dissonance-afflicted believe that anyone was “exonerated.” The whitewash show trials were conducted with everyone in the room being on the same side. No cross examination, no follow-up questions, only softball questions – and the outcome was predetermined when Mann was allowed to repeatedly confer with individual committee members before and during the show trials. Every “investigation” followed the same script.
Next, Pepper says: the case they have been making has been independently confirmed by the research of many others.
Wrong. Mann’s Hokey Stick was beloved by the UN/IPCC. It was visually much more spectacular and scary than any of the charts the IPCC uses now. So why did the IPCC stop publishing Mann’s chart? Because it was so thoroughly debunked by McIntyre and McKittrick that the IPCC was forced to drop it. It was proved to be bogus, based on cherry-picked, incorrect proxies, with the good proxies hidden in an ftp file labeled “censored” by a devious and unprincipled Michael Mann.
Mann is still the same climate charlatan he was in MBH98/99. In Mann’s ’08 paper, he used a known corrupted proxy – the Tiljander sediment series – in order to make another hockey stick chart. His fraudulent paper was hand-waved through the corrupt climate pal review system, but then blown out of the water when his shenanigans were exposed, again by McIntyre. So Pepper’s statement above is completely wrong.
Alternative scenarios have been thoroughly debunked. eg Lindzen et al. There are still many who are making rhetorical arguments, expressing their “skepticism”, but they have no science to confirm their positions.
Prof Richard Lindzen is smeared here by Pepper, who gives no details. Dr Lindzen is head of MIT’s atmospheric sciences department. For Pepper to claim that scientific skeptics such as Dr Lindzen “have no science to confirm their positions” makes Pepper nothing more than a crank.
Finally, Pepper says:
If there is a disconfirming position which can be borne out by researched findings, this should be presented immediately in the accepted forums.
There is one common thread that runs through all climate alarmists: their refusal to understand and/or follow the scientific method. For the umpteenth time: scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on the alarmist crowd to provide testable, reproducible, real world evidence showing that human CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming. But there is zero evidence showing that the current *very mild* 0.7°C warming over the past century and a half is due to anything other than natural variability as the planet continues to emerge from the LIA.
Hugh Pepper got everything in his comment completely wrong. Now it’s been corrected here and in the comments following Pepper’s.
Which leaves R Gates, who has never produced the putative evidence I’ve repeatedly asked for, showing global damage from CO2. In fact, there is no such empirical, testable evidence of global harm from that benign trace gas. CO2 is both harmless and beneficial – to anyone who follows the scientific method. But to Gates, it’s his evidence-free reason that Arctic ice is declining. As if.
Smokey says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:32 am
eadler says:
“Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity.”
Enough with your 97% nonsense. It has been repeatedly debunked, yet you cling to it like a drowning man clings to a stick. You couldn’t get a poll where 97% believed Hitler was a bad guy. But you actually believe that 97% of scientists believe humans cause global warming? Get a grip.
==========================
Yes, indeed. I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it. It saddens me that people will stoop to such levels to manipulate the truth for their own ends. Of course, eadler makes no mention of the poll of 30,000 scientists who were against the notion of AGW.
Simple arithmetic shows these claims to be nonsense, since less than 100 of respondents could be classed as climate scientists. That would leave 3 scientists who disapproved of the motion. But I can think of at least Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Pielke, Baliunus, Scafetta, Douglass, Loehle, Tisdale who are also against the motion. The number 97% is so ridiculous that even a politician would be embarrased to make such a statement. It is just jaw droppingly nuts.
Smokey,
You are assuming that the entire universe of climate scientists is the number who replied to the both of the polls. They were only samples. One of the polls was taken by Roger Pielke Sr. he is certainly not part of the 97% who accept that humans are causing global warming.
Smokey Said:
Yes, indeed. I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it. It saddens me that people will stoop to such levels to manipulate the truth for their own ends. Of course, eadler makes no mention of the poll of 30,000 scientists who were against the notion of AGW.
If you are referring to the famous Oregon petition, it was not a poll, did not actually contain signatures of 30,000 scientists, and was obtained by fraudulent means.
eadler, you’re losing it, bud. Try to work on your reading comprehension, and reply to the right commentator. You’re wrong about the rest of it, too. Fair question: are you really Barrie Harrop?
Smokey,
Sorry,
about the misattribution in my post
“eadler says:
March 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm ……”
I overlooked the ========, and I should have attributed the statements to Vince Causey.
It’s a plateau. I’d call it a topping pattern.
Ghosts, Flying Saucers, 2012, Astrology, Perpetual Motion, Magic Fuel Pellets, 100 mph carburetor, Algier Hiss and Rosenburg innocence, 9/11 Inside Job, JFK killed by everyone except Oswald, Cheney/Haliburton Conspiracy, Bush 41 SR-71 to Iran, Nostradamus, Ethanol, Windmills and Solar Cells (for replacement instead of supplemental use) … yep, these folks exist and show up in every poll. They show up all right, they are the AGW constituency. These shallow thinkers are either the originators or enablers of countless crackpot diversions and AGW is only the latest. I assume you have manufactured for yourself a safety cushion of cognitive dissonance to allow yourself denial of this, but rest assured, the overlap of all these listed groups is probably 90%, and those people are the AGW cheerleader base. As I said in another thread: You can find them by day wearing sandwich boards along Times Square stating ‘The End is Near, by night they’re busy phoning in to ‘Coast to Coast’ or Alex Jones.
That herd will unquestionably, inevitably and indubitably land on the wrong side of an issue, especially the big ones. What more proof is needed than their attempt to rob Trillions of dollars from the taxpayers to theoretically decrease the average temperature by less than a single degree! If this last description of the plan sounds incorrect to you, how would you summarize the net result? [see recent thread by Willis].
When do you know that public opinion is turning against the scam?
Ans. When you have your national leader declaring that
“No opinion poll can change the fact that climate change is real”.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/its-carbon-price-d-day-warns-gillard/story-fn6bfkm6-1226022760465
eadler,
“If you are referring to the famous Oregon petition, it was not a poll, did not actually contain signatures of 30,000 scientists, and was obtained by fraudulent means.”
Fraudulent. Hmm, I remember that word. Something to do with hockey sticks and hiding the decline wasn’t it? Or is fraud something that only sceptics engage in?
Thirty-one Republicans on the House Energy And Commerce Committee — the entire Republican contingent on the panel — declined on Tuesday to vote in support of the very idea that climate change exists.
Democrats on the panel had suggested three amendments that said climate change is a real thing, is caused by humans and has potentially dire consequences for the future.
If these amendments had passed, there would be no need for the scientific community any longer.
Cut eadler some slack, he’s suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance. He’s not himself.
Had to chortle though over the “…and was obtained by fraudulent means” regarding the petition.
Yes, those 30K people that made the choice to respond (including Freeman Dyson), that filled out the forms, bought a stamp, and put them in the mail were defrauded. Let’s get a lawsuit going to get each one that 39 cents back. /sarc
Anthony,
Last time I used a stamp it was $.44 to mail something via the US Postal Service. Speaking of surveys, I would be interested in a survey of all the experts WHO publically supported CA’s efforts to reduce our carbon dioxide footprint by asking those experts the following questions-
Pease rate your response on a 1-10 scale with 10 meaning you completely agree with the statement- 1 meaning you do not agree with the statement at all.
1) Dr. Mann’s original published hockey stick graph influenced my position to support the urgent need to reduce manmade CO2.
2) I have reviewed the methods that Dr. Mann used to “hide the decline” and I agree that the approach taken by Dr. Mann with the data was acceptable in the world of Post Normal Science.
3) I have reviewed the data and methods originally used by Dr. Mann and would classify the methods he used as confirmation bias.
4) I would of supported the urgent need to curb manmade CO2 generation with the same public statements if I had been aware of the methods used by Dr. Mann.
5) I have reviewed the methods that Dr. Mann used to hide the decline and I feel that his methods should be classified as unethical per the traditional scientific method.
6) I would of retracted my support of CA’s approach to reducing man made CO2 if I had been aware of how the hockey stick data was generated.
Look at the first graph, showing the period 2001 to 2006. The figure went from 30 through 38 and back to 30 (generally exaggerated.) 38 was in 2004. What increased the skepticism between 2001 and 2004? What turned it around again. These results are being carefully watched by the manipulators, and they have control of most of the tools of opinion. I find the decrease in skepticism over the last year particularly disturbing.
The dark side is clawing it back. It seems beyond comprehension. Never underestimate the power of an endlessly repeated lie. Never underestimate the power of “scientific consensus,” even and especially on scientists.
Anthony Watts,
eadler was once a member of a skeptic forum who was banned for being too far into the AGW pseudoscience. I was also a member of that same forum. Having to deal with people like him was difficult.
Believe me, he is too far gone in the head to ever be honest or rational here.