Democrats and Republicans increasingly divided over global warming

Gosh, we never would have figured this out on our own. The conclusion is stunning:

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In response to our first research question, we find a sizable political divide between
liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans in the American public on the issue of global warming. Just as elites are politically divided on this issue, so too is the general public. Liberals and Democrats are more likely to hold beliefs about global warming consistent with the scientific consensus and to express concern about this environmental problem than are conservatives and Republicans. Furthermore, this divide has grown substantially over the past decade.

/sarc

Previously from the same professor: Study: Women more likely than men to accept global warming

From Michigan State University

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Despite the growing scientific consensus that global warming is real, Americans have become increasingly polarized on the environmental issue, according to a first-of-its-kind study led by a Michigan State University researcher.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans who believe global warming is happening increased 30 percent between 2001 and 2010 – a “depressing” trend that’s essentially keeping meaningful national energy policies from being considered, argues sociologist Aaron M. McCright.

“Instead of a public debate about different policies to deal with global warming, a significant percentage of the American public is still debating the science,” said McCright, MSU associate professor and primary investigator on the study. “As a result, we’re failing to significantly address one of the most serious problems of our time.”

The study is featured in the spring issue of the research journal Sociological Quarterly, online now.

McCright and Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State University analyzed 10 years of data from Gallup’s environmental poll, making the study the first of its kind to use multiple years of data. The Gallup poll, conducted annually, consists of a nationally representative telephone survey of at least 1,000 people.

According to the MSU-led study, people on the right of the political spectrum increasingly deny the existence of global warming, while people on the left generally believe in global warming more now than they did 10 years ago. Among other things, the study found:

  • Of those who identify as Republicans, about 49 percent said in the 2001 Gallup survey that they believe the effects of global warming have already begun – a number that dropped to 29 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, the percentage of Democrats who believe global warming has already begun increased from about 60 in 2001 to 70 in 2010. All told, the gap between these “believers” in the two parties increased from 11 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2010.
  • A similar trend held for people who identify as either conservative or liberal. When it came to believing that global warming has already begun, the gap between conservatives and liberals increased from about 18 percent in 2001 to 44 percent in 2010.
  • Among liberals and Democrats, having a college degree increases the likelihood of reporting beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus. Yet, among conservatives and Republicans, having a college degree often decreases the likelihood of reporting such beliefs.

According to McCright, these results are consistent with the prevailing theory that explains how political polarization occurs in the general public. “In the last few decades political elites have become polarized on climate change. This has driven the political divide on this topic within the American public, as regular citizens have taken cues from ideological and party leaders they trust.”

McCright said the process has been magnified over the past decade by the emergence of media outlets where citizens can seek out news and ideas that reinforce their values and beliefs. He said citizens at either end of the political spectrum can get daily information – albeit very different information – on global warming that further strengthens their opposing beliefs about what is real.

“Unfortunately, this is not a recipe for promoting a civil, science-based discussion on this very serious environmental problem,” McCright said. “Like with the national discussion on health care, we don’t even agree on what the basic facts are.”

This political polarization on climate change is not likely to go away in the near future, he added.

“Many Republican Party leaders have moved further to the right since the 2008 presidential election. We’ve also seen attacks on climate science by Tea Party activists. It seems like climate change denial has become something of a litmus test for Republican candidates,” McCright said.

“This continued elite polarization on climate change means that the general public will likely remain politically divided on climate change for a while.”

###

Michigan State University has been working to advance the common good in uncommon ways for more than 150 years. One of the top research universities in the world, MSU focuses its vast resources on creating solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges, while providing life-changing opportunities to a diverse and inclusive academic community through more than 200 programs of study in 17 degree-granting colleges.

Full paper here (PDF)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Democrats and Republicans increasingly divided over global warming

  1. Mike Bromley says:

    Yup, there’s that growing consensus thing again. So there. Time to act, because it’s growing. Better hurry before it shrinks.
    /sarc

  2. jae says:

    LOL.

    “Despite the growing scientific consensus that global warming is real, Americans have become increasingly polarized on the environmental issue, according to a first-of-its-kind study led by a Michigan State University researcher.”

    I do hope that this brilliant DOCKTOR will finally realize that the rest of his rant is completely at odds with this statement! Dare I say moron, here?

    All part of the effort to “present the MESSAGE more clearly,” I suppose.

    Let’s just hope he doesn’t get past “associate professor.”

    LOL, again!

  3. Louis Hissink says:

    Which basically means the issue was political from the start and thus the latest occurrence of a political hijacking of science for other goals. And some of us thought it was all about bad science. tsk, tsk, tsk.

  4. Tez says:

    As I have suspected for a long time, AGW is politically motivated, with biased science backed predictions as an attempt to legitimise their policies.

    As the prophetic Ten Years After once sung:

    Everywhere is freaks and hairies
    Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
    Tax the rich, feed the poor
    Till there are no rich no more?

    I’d love to change the world
    But I don’t know what to do
    So I’ll leave it up to you

  5. Lady Life Grows says:

    Thank you very much for publishing this here. This is important factual information, and gives us an idea of the formidable machine we are up against.

    A hundred years from now the warmists will be laughed at, but that does not save any lives now. For the alarmism has no track record of successful prediction, which makes it a pseudoscience not a science. The facts of photosynthesis remain, both as to its inputs and its optimal temperatures.

    And burning our corn is killing thousands of people, just in the riots, not counting the hunger created. Those people have a strong material interest in the truth. We need to reach out to them.

  6. Ryan Maue says:


    Glad I went to University of Michigan, home to Ann Coulter and a decent football team (at one time).

  7. ZT says:

    If the science doesn’t work – label unbelievers as politically motivated – nice. There is a similar vibe going on over here (only on this occasion associating phrenology and ‘progressives’ or the others).

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/28/political-allegiances-brain-structure-study

    “An experiment has found differences between the brains of progressives and conservatives.

    Head scans of students at University College London, conducted by neuroscientist Geraint Rees, showed a “strong correlation” between thickness in two regions, the amygdala and the anterior cingulate, and political viewpoint.

    Rees said he was “very surprised” by the finding because the experiment was a lighthearted item commissioned by Colin Firth for his guest-editing slot on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme.

    The actor has said he no longer supports the Lib Dems, and joked about Nick Clegg: “I think we should have him scanned.””

  8. brc says:

    What I don’t get is how these guys always, and I mean always, get it back to front.

    They see an increasingly skeptical public.

    They see increasingly skeptical politicians on one side of the spectrum.

    They conclude the politicians have influenced the public, failing to realise that the politicians have picked up on the increased skepticism of the public and adjusted their stance accordingly. At no point do they contemplate that maybe, just maybe, a large proportion of the public came up with their own conclusions.

    The same goes for the pro-warming communicators. They keep bashing us over the head with armageddon scenarios, and then conclude because public ‘belief’ is falling, it’s because some nefarious deniers are out spreading misinformation. At no point do they consider that perhaps they are trying to flog a product nobody wants to buy.

    The whole sorry charade has been caused because in the last 5-10 years, a lot of people mistook nodding heads for people who would back up their vague agreement with real action.

  9. Mark Allinson says:

    How amazing, that the “progressive” side of politics thinks that a scheme to hobble capitalism, increase taxes, and re-distribute wealth is one we should support. Surely any “science” that could be used to support such a scheme, say the liberals, is right and should never be questioned – gift horses should not have dental inspections.

    And just as amazing that conservatives should look more closely at the “science” and notice all the holes in it.

    I wonder if the penny will ever drop with these folk that there is a political divide on this issue because it is purely and simply a political matter. If only it wasn’t – we could then follow the science in and for itself, without all the nasty name-calling.

  10. rbateman says:

    All this Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Catastrophe is about is simply one of many excuses they are using to justify more taxation and entitlement spending. Not a penny will go to the real problem: The National Debt and the Negative Credit Rating handed out by S&P.
    Meanwhile, the Canadian and Midwest wheat crops are reeling from late snows and cold, a thing of the past according to the ‘concensus’.
    Regional cooling at its finest.

  11. crosspatch says:

    I consider myself more libertarian than liberal or conservative. The issue for me is that the current changes noticed in global climate appear to be well within the usual range of natural variation that we have experienced during the Holocene.

    We have seen nothing to indicate anything extraordinary is going on that might be directly caused by human actions.

    I *do* see the political left attempting to misinform and use fear and ignorance in order to get “buy in” for policies that are “sold” as being related to climate but which actually are used as levers to further their socioeconomic goals.

    It is so frustrating to see how easily people are persuaded and it is really no surprise as the teachers in our schools seem to be the vanguard of the global socialist movement. It really is sad because I fear their “idealism” will actually result in a lot of suffering and misery for a lot of people. Maybe they honestly believe they are “helping” people when I see it as just the opposite. They are “helping” people to death.

    So now we must “conserve” energy due to shortages that exist only due to policy decisions taken without any sound basis in reality.

    I honestly fear for the generations behind me.

  12. David Falkner says:

    Wow Maue, you went to blue? Must be awful these past few years during bowl season. Of course, you can always take comfort in the fact that I am a ND fan. If I were an OSU fan, I’d really have to give you the what-fer.

    As to the subject of the story, I would not be surprised. I think that some of the left treats AGW like some of the right treats creationism. And then you have the general outliers (panderers) who fall in between. Not a big shock.

  13. jae says:

    (For those who missed the point, the “consensus” seems to be moving in the opposite direction of the “intellegencia” think it is). You now have to be an absolute dunce to believe in CAGW! LOL, once again!

  14. caipira says:

    “EAST LANSING, Mich. — Despite the growing scientific consensus that global warming is real,[...]”

    Ok, I see where the article is going, so I don’t have to read the rest, right? :)

    Someone will end up suggesting a vote to decide if global warming, oops, climate change, oops again, global climate disruption is real or not. You know, to decide things democratically. Because, obviously, consensus equal scientific fact… right? (sarc tag is implicit, right?)

    Loved the hot-left/cold-right image, Anthony. It just fits!

  15. Jack Greer says:

    Ryan Maue said April 19, 2011 at 9:42 pm”
    “Glad I went to University of Michigan, home to Ann Coulter and a decent football team (at one time).”

    An ardent fan of an opportunistic yet fading attention harlot ideologue, and of a team whose seniors, if they lose this year, will never have beaten MSU … that, plus the fact that UofM professors in applicable disciplines are absolutely no less convinced of the AGW threat. Great points, Ryan.

  16. Steve Oregon says:

    Here in Oregon, home of Jane Lubchenco and with an unfair disproportianate share of lunatics it’s essentially a complete party line- AGW vs skeptics split.
    Especially with Democrats. They have run every agency in the state for many years and have pushed the AGW into nearly every policy.

    Our left wing democrat politicians, academia and bureaucratas have further to fall with the collapse of AGW than any just about any other state.

  17. Steeptown says:

    “a “depressing” trend”. It may be depressing to an alarmist, but not to normal folk. This McCright chappie is only a lowly associate professor, so that accounts for his lack of understanding of the world.

  18. pat says:

    Hmmmm. I think the Dems were at the “Peace Rally” during science classes.
    But, heh. They mean well.
    So long as they are comfortable.

  19. rbateman says:

    I have a Global Warming game to play.
    It works like this:
    You take out a loan for 1,000,000 dollars. I buy a red marker pen.
    We spread them out on a very big table.
    You mark 400 of the dollar bills as CO2.
    The rest we leave unmarked.
    The 400 bills marked vs the 999,600 unmarked represent CO2 in the atmosphere.
    If you believe that CO2 causes warming, then you keep those 400 marked bills and sequester them. I keep the unmarked bills.
    Have you passed out yet?
    Great. Next!

  20. Hugh Pepper says:

    People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change. The evidence is overwhelming for these people. FOX news followers, who are mostly Republicans, are still arguing about the “theory of evolution”, gay marriage, and abortion. The only reason that there is any skeptical discussion about climate change and global warming, is because the (mainly) “skeptical PR barrage has succeeded in creating an impression that there is still doubt in the scientific community regarding these critical issues. This “doubt” is slowing down the change process and creating circumstances which are becoming increasingly dangerous.

  21. Ian H says:

    This politicization is unfortunate. Where does it leave people like myself? I find republican politics repulsive. I reject the global warming notion not for political reasons, but for scientific ones.

  22. AHThatcher says:

    I just finished attending a city council meeting tonight where a staffer proceeded to discuss all of the climate change plans that this city and the neighboring 10 cities are all embarking on. Most of the cities already have legislation in place requiring emission reductions and other actions to support actions to minimize climate change. So, even if people finally suceed in getting the majority of Americans to realize that anthropogenic climate change is a non issue we’ll still be stuck with legislation across the country driving us down the same road. I think we may have already missed the boat.

  23. snowshoedude says:

    Have we always been at war with Eurasia?

    I wonder what the political breakdown of that question would be….

    Winston Smith

  24. pat says:

    Hugh Pepper.
    You are a moron. The climate changes daily. It is called “weather”. The question is not whether Earth warmed from 1979 through 1998. it did. But rather the cause.
    It has cooled a bit since. ….And appears to be cooling a bit more.
    If you cannot understand that the AGW hypothesis is in total shreds, then you must be Al Gore.
    Or at least took science with him.
    “You can’t always get what you want.” The Rolling Stones.

  25. Ron House says:

    Hugh Pepper, you say: “People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change.”

    Is that why the climate alarmists foisted a fake graph upon us that claimed the climate was static for a thousand years prior to industrialisation, when all sane people knew the climate always has and always will change, that it was hotter in the medieval warm period, colder in the little ice age, and so on?

    /naivety

    Come on now, you haven’t studied this for yourself at all, have you? You haven’t investigated the theory (that CO2 causes more water vapour and then a rising tropical hotspot, and that in reality, the hotspot, the mechanism that MUST be present for the theory to work, well, ISN’T.) Thus the theory is disproved. Heard any of that? Or that the main heat dissipation mechanism is convection, to which adiabatic gas expansion places a maximum temperature gradient through the atmosphere and the Earth is and always has been more or less exactly on that maximum value, thus making impossible any further heating?

    Do you know anything about that at all? Why should anyone here have to put up with your nonsense?

    Oh, and no, we do not disbelieve AGW because the news has created an illusion that scientists are still undecided. Almost every last skeptic here has investigated the case personally for themselves. Unlike gullible you, obviously. The opinions of “scientists” for us, as is always the case with true science, doesn’t matter one jot. Evidence, tests of theories, that is what matters.

    If you want to stick around, then please accept this simple challenge: Post ANY evidence that CO2 causes dangerous atmospheric warming. Anything at all. With all that “consensus” out there that you tell us about, it shouldn’t be too hard. It’ll be fun to actually discuss science for once instead of mindless blather about counting how many global warming scientists fit on the head of a pin.

  26. materialist says:

    HP: “People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change. The evidence is overwhelming for these people. ”

    Wow! What a devastating argument to level against us poor benighted folks who draw different conclusions from the available evidence! I really didn’t know that I was incapable of “reading objectively” and that I was “seduced by [you left out the adjective "false"] ‘beliefs’”. What is left for intellectual losers like myself but to bow to your self-acknowledged superior wisdom and join the millions of “climate refugees” who, as our intellectual superiors assure us, are fleeing the populated coastal centers even as we speak. They are, aren’t they?

  27. Christian Takacs says:

    I believe it is self evident that when an argument uses an appeal to scientific consensus (educated elite athorities) to negate the right to self determination, private property, and liberty , that a con is taking place as well as a blatant grab for power. I don’t care what the “experts” say, they can’t have my freedom just because their “unquestionable facts” tell them enslavement is more efficient and good for the environment. I am amazed how naieve college educated people are concerning a very thinly veiled appeal to absoulute centralized authority painted over with a gloss of scientific jargon and egalitarianism. Too bad educated elite don’t learn about what happened in Germany on Jan 30, 1933… it might give them pause before they try to ‘save’ us.

  28. Martin Brumby says:

    Hey, cut the associate “Professor” some slack!

    “Previously from the same professor: Study: Women more likely than men to accept global warming.”

    Coming soon:-
    “Coffee Drinkers more likely to be sceptical than Tea Drinkers”
    “Men who dress to the left more likely to accept consensus view of Climate Change”
    “Twinkie Bar fanciers more likely to believe Al Gore than Beer Drinkers”

    There’s a whole career path mapped out there for Sociologist “Researchers”!

  29. John says:

    *Sigh* *face-palm*

    Well, I guess it is useful — in some ways — to have empirical evidence…..very long, detailed empirical evidence of the bleeding obvious.

  30. Mike McMillan says:

    David Falkner says: April 19, 2011 at 10:05 pm
    Wow Maue, you went to blue? Must be awful these past few years during bowl season. Of course, you can always take comfort in the fact that I am a ND fan.

    I was stationed awhile in ND when I was in the Air Force. Nice people, but mighty cold up in Minot. I don’t recall they had much of a football team, but it’s nice to know they have a few fans.

  31. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Hugh Pepper says on April 19, 2011 at 11:02 pm:

    “People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change. ”

    After watching weather reports on the TV for about 60 years, I have concluded that there is no climate change. That is to say, the patterns of weather in the various regions of the earth are about same. Weather can be variable year-to-year, and there can be exreme weather events such as prolonged drought. But over the long haul weather usually settle downs back down normal.

    You should take a trip into the countyside and ask the old folks about climate change.
    What do the white-coated wisguys in NYC really know weather and climate?

  32. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Of COURSE the scientific consensus is growing! Let us look at the trends.

    We don’t have data earlier than about 1985, but I can extrapolate the trend using a computer model to show that there was no warming consensus whatsoever in 1970 – in fact, there was a belief that an ice-age was due.

    Now we have at least 20% belief in global warming. That is a significant positive trend. I predict that by the year 2300 EVERYBODY will believe in global warming.

    Can I have my grant money now…?

  33. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Mark Allinson says on April 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm:

    How amazing, that the “progressive” side of politics thinks that a scheme to hobble capitalism, increase taxes, and re-distribute wealth is one we should support. Surely any “science” that could be used to support such a scheme, say the liberals, is right and should never be questioned – gift horses should not have dental inspections.

    FYI: Such schemes are now operating in BC. In July 2008, BC enacted the “Climate Action Plan” (CAP) and started Phase One of the Plan: A carbon tax on fossil fuels at $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. This tax will increase to $30 per tonne on July 1, 2012. I currently pay a ca 20% tax on the commodity price of BC nat gas.

    The BC gov will soon introduce Phase Two: Laws regulating the emission of GHG’s from all sources. When the Climate Action Plan is fully “entrenched” in law, the BC gov has the “legislative authority” to:

    1. Indirectly, seize control of all means of production.

    2. Indirectly, control the production of all goods and services.

    3. Use the carbon tax scheme to redistribute wealth via tax cuts to busineses and corporation and to taxpayers with incomes less than $120,000. Individual taxpayers and families with incomes much greater than $120,000 get no tax breaks.

    4. Control every aspect of the affairs and lives of the people of BC. For example, banning the sale of certain incan. lightbulbs.

    NB: The terms “entrenched” and “legislative authority” are used in the CAP.

    What is really scary about the CAP is that the clueless folks in BC have swallowed the CAP hook, line, sinker, beaver, bear, and bluejay. There have been no complaints so far about the CAP.

  34. John A says:

    I’ve been hearing about the “growing”, “overwhelming” scientific consensus for more than ten years. Given the claims of growth, it should have reached 3000% of all scientists by now.

    I also don’t see the growth in Democratic support or liberal support for AGW claims. Instead, more and more self-described liberals are standing up and calling BS when they see it.

    This appeal to popularity is about as unscientific as it gets. When I ask about the claims of Special Relativity, I never get the reply that Relativity is supported by an overwhelming consensus, or that anti-Relativists are supported by evil Newtonians to deny the truth of Relativity. I just get references to experiments designed to falsify Relativity that repeatedly show that despite Relativity’s counter-intuitive claims, every properly done experiment shows that Relativity’s claims are correct to high accuracy.

    See http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html for example.

    The claim of consensus means the evidence is weak and the greater the consensus claimed, the weaker the evidence.

  35. rbateman says:

    Dodgy Geezer says:
    April 20, 2011 at 1:27 am

    That Coming Ice Age that was all the rage in the 1970′s is still just as due now as it was then. It will take 10-12 thousand years to get to the icy bottom, but who wants to debate messy details. We’ll all just go into cyrogenic freeze and set the timer for 80,000 years when the next Interglacial is due. Better yet, lets build rockets and travel to Alpha Centauri, only 60,000 years one way.

  36. Laws of Nature says:

    Hi Anthony,

    any time I see articles like this, I feel that there are nutcases on both sides.. For example there is scientifically no doubt whatsoever, that additional CO2 in the lower atmosphere traps outgoing radiation. The question what that exactly means for the climate is a different one! (The direct effect for the CO2-doubling is somewhere near 1° Fahrenheit according to actual scientific knowledge)
    A few posts up here was one seeming to ignore this fact.. It is important to point out any wrong posts in your blog .. otherwise deniers are watering down valid skeptic arguments!

  37. cedarhill says:

    My favorite thought experiment is to have a group of warmist and skeptics travel to the top of the Empire State Building and tell them that global warming consensus has is that if you jump the rising hot air due to AGW will cushion you and you will float gently to the ground, avoiding all those elevators. After all, it’s consensus.

  38. paul haynes says:

    Tez to quote your first sentence – “As I have suspected for a long time, AGW is politically motivated, with biased science backed predictions as an attempt to legitimise their policies”

    Surely, then, the view that anti-AGW is politically motivated, with biased science backed predictions as an attempt to legitimise their policies, is equally supported by the article, OR is this confirmation bias on your part?

    http://mitigatingapathy.blogspot.com/

  39. Simon says:

    “According to McCright, these results are consistent with the prevailing theory that explains how political polarization occurs in the general public. “In the last few decades political elites have become polarized on climate change. This has driven the political divide on this topic within the American public, as regular citizens have taken cues from ideological and party leaders they trust.” ”

    This may apply to the periphery of each party (the true believers), but I don’t think political and ideological leaders are the primary-driver of the divide. Politicians aren’t all fools – they know when the public mood is changing and when to follow suit – and that change can be based on many things, particularly with such a complex issue as AGW.

  40. DirkH says:

    The left has hijacked the word science by promoting AGW. Face it, the word now means something else.

  41. Stefan says:

    Kinda fits the notion that one side is trying to package their political values inside a shiny wrapper of “scientific objectivity.”

    This is why they are so adamant that “the science” is beyond question – you’re not supposed to [snip] question it — that’s the whole point!!!

    It is the modern version of claiming you have god on your side – nobody is supposed to disbelieve god.

    Denialists! Heathens!

    Well stretch that tactic too far, corrupt god for your political aims, corrupt science for your political aims, and well, just see what happened to “god’s authority.” Few believe in that anymore.

    I mean, I long for a day when we can resolve differences, but we’ll do that by thinking at a higher level (thanks Einstein) than we do now. You can’t solve the left-right and conservative-progressive polarities by just beating the other side down, you solve it by thinking at a higher level where you can integrate constructively what each side has to offer, as appropriate to the problem at hand.

  42. Otter says:

    What deniers do you see here, laws ‘o nature? Can you point some out on other blogs, say, on JoNova’s for example?

  43. Alan the Brit says:

    Slurp of coffee, ah….that’s better. Now for my twopence-half-penny’s worth. Pronounced “tuppence-hapenies” worth. (And apologies for being a bore yet again)

    1925 Pocket Oxford Dictionary…..Consenus:- Agreement of “opinion” on the part of all concerned…..& “Opinion”:- Belief based upon grounds short of proof! View held as probable! What one thinks of something, e.g. “what it seems to me”! A disputable point! Definitely sounds like settled science to me then, sarc off!

    Why is it people arbitrarily stick the word “science” after a subject to try & increase its dubious value, e.g. Social Scientist, (in other words Social Historian, but history (elsewhere touted as an art form) can be very subjective, so call him a scientist, it sounds better & lends more weight to it! It pees me off when I hear people quoting their degrees like “a degree in Political Science”. Utter tosh. What they mean is a degree in how to exercise influence & control over others in society, IMHO. Science is science, politics is politics, never the twain should meet, lest there be a complete disaster.

  44. 1DandyTroll says:

    So, essentially, the study only shows that its authors belong to the far left right hippie green Goebbels industry and is trying to try try again.

    It’s kind of cute how they so ardently use cheap political propaganda tricks from their “golden” days to claim the opposition is politically motivated.

  45. eadler says:

    Laws of Nature says:
    April 20, 2011 at 2:04 am

    Hi Anthony,

    any time I see articles like this, I feel that there are nutcases on both sides.. For example there is scientifically no doubt whatsoever, that additional CO2 in the lower atmosphere traps outgoing radiation. The question what that exactly means for the climate is a different one! (The direct effect for the CO2-doubling is somewhere near 1° Fahrenheit according to actual scientific knowledge)
    A few posts up here was one seeming to ignore this fact.. It is important to point out any wrong posts in your blog .. otherwise deniers are watering down valid skeptic arguments!

    Be careful. If you use the D-word, to often, you may be banned from posting.
    You also have the direct effect of CO2 wrong- it is 1Celsius, which is 1.8F.

  46. Jimmy Haigh says:

    I was a liberal until I grew up. I think I was about 13 when I realised I’d been wrong all my life.

  47. DEEBEE says:

    IMO these are all manifestations of willingness to accept “authority uber alles”. But to explain it that way would not create grants and studies. Shrouding it in the “shamanic” mysteries of gender, politics etc is more intriguing

  48. Joe Lalonde says:

    Anthony,

    What is making more people skeptical is that science tied itself to politics and in doing so has left the door wide open for being lied to mentality. How many, many , times has political promises been made and the goal NOT achieved.
    Again, many, many times.
    I don’t think I’d be surprised is stoning politicians would be brought up as they are NEVER accountable for their decisions.

  49. Allen63 says:

    As Ron House points out, many of us here are Scientists with appropriate backgrounds and others are bright folks who have studied the problem and “done the math” for themselves.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a “problem” we should be trying to “solve” — is the conclusion most of us reach.

  50. I realize this is anecdotal and a small sample size, but: the liberals I know overwhelmingly have bachelor of arts degrees while the conservatives I know overwhelmingly have bachelor of science degrees.

  51. Dave Wendt says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    April 19, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    As I see it the only people who are denying climate change are those who, like you appear to, have drunk too deeply from the Jim Jones KoolAid of the IPCC. Those who continuously indicate that not a breeze blows, not a raindrop or snowflake falls, not an earthquake trembles, nor a volcano belches without the intervention of the influence of humanity and our greedy rapacious behaviors. I’ve been alive for more than six decades and near as I can tell the climate has been different on each and every day of all those years. I don’t know why that is, but after a couple of decades of dumpster diving through mountains of what seems to be some of the most incompetent science that humanity has ever produced I’m unconvinced that anyone in “climate science” has any better understanding than I do. I do know that to all appearances rich and warm is infinitely superior to poor and cold. To me the only thing the Republicans have going for themselves is that they are not Democrats and that has been enough to earn my vote recently, but not much of my affection. Every year of my life has involved a range of temperatures greater than 120 degrees F and I and all the people around me have made it through even though Mother Nature has been doing her best to take us out. I would agree that if we don’t immediately stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere at least 9 billion people will die before we get to 2100, but if we do nothing at all about it those billions will be just as dead, but at least they will have had the possibility of extracting a little joy and comfort from their all too short stints on this planet.

  52. Bruce Cobb says:

    Guys, don’t be too hard on HP, no doubt freshly back and fired up from his Greenie Socialist pep-rally weekend at “Power Shift 2011″. He’s simply on an evangelistic mission, to spread “awareness” of “human-caused climate change”, completely unaware of his, and his cohorts’ utter folly. They have not only drunk the kool-aid; they have bathed in it.

  53. Keith Battye says:

    I live in a country which is essentially communist. Here in Zimbabwe the state tries to control everything and anything it can. The controls don’t work, the economy has stopped, one third of the population has run off to live in capitalist democracies and they are not coming back.

    The bits of the economy that do work are those that are the product of individuals operating in their own enlightened self interest and under the government radar.

    Yes I know that we have the most incompetent government in the world but that only serves to make the point more clearly. The government puts out excellent reasons for all of their controls and yet the failure of each directive is complete except insofar as they feed the gatekeepers and the connected.Less incompetence in government would only change the speed of failure but it will not prevent failure.

    This is true of the global warming crew too. Every policy sounds OK on the face of it but they are wrong and really only represent some egghead’s concept of what will work for the rest of us.

    Individuals working in their own self interest will always result in the least bad outcome whether you are talking economics or climate change. Your Tea Party types calling for less and smaller government and expanding individual rights , freedoms and obligations seem to have a better view of what is needed. I live in an over controlled, inefficient and oppressive culture and it is a really bad idea. Just because this is Zimbabwe doesn’t mean it won’t happen to you, it will just take longer if you don’t take back your individual rights and freedoms and obligations.

  54. Mr Lynn says:

    Harold Pierce Jr says:
    April 20, 2011 at 1:30 am

    FYI: Such schemes are now operating in BC. In July 2008, BC enacted the “Climate Action Plan” (CAP) and started Phase One of the Plan: A carbon tax on fossil fuels at $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. This tax will increase to $30 per tonne on July 1, 2012. I currently pay a ca 20% tax on the commodity price of BC nat gas.

    The BC gov will soon introduce Phase Two: Laws regulating the emission of GHG’s from all sources. . .

    To understand the left-right divide on so-called ‘climate change’, née ‘global warming’, you have to ask why leftist politicians, academics, bureaucrats have been so quick to jump on the completely unverified speculation that human-generated ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHGs) if unchecked will cause catastrophic warming of ‘the planet’ (CAGW), and why that speculation was promulgated by lay and scientist ‘activists’ to begin with.

    For the answer you have to look at the mindset of the ideologues who believe in the primacy of the State over the individual. The ‘global warming’ scare scenario back in the ’80s offered a cause that fit right into their dream agenda, an excuse for rampant government taxation and control of industry and individual lives. It was ideal because it dragged along millions of earnest, liberal folks who dutifully send contributions to organizations like Greenpeace and the misnamed World Wildlife Fund, easily convinced that GHGs presented a mortal danger to the Earth, Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’.

    The problem now is that we have government apparatchiks at every level, from city councils to nations, eagerly and greedily riding the CAGW gravy train. The BC scheme that Mr. Pierce describes is a prime example. The major exception, so far, has been the US Congress, thanks to the Republicans (and a few Democrats) in the Senate in 2009, who managed to stop the egregious ‘Cap and Trade’ bill passed in the House from becoming law, and thanks to the congressional elections of last Fall, which may even enable the Republicans to reign in the rampant EPA and stop the most statist administration in US history in its tracks.

    But sensible folk and freedom lovers in the USA will not be able to rest easy until the Obama administration is history, along with its ‘czars’ and wild-eyed radicals, like Secretary of Energy Chu and Science Advisor Holdren. We are by no means out of the statist enviro-fascist woods yet.

    /Mr Lynn

  55. Nuke says:

    The quickest and most sure-fire way to judge scientific ignorance and illiteracy is to note if someone use “scientific consensus” as an argument instead of presenting facts. Alternately, those people may simply have political agendas.

  56. Hugh Pepper says:

    The best summaries of current “science” are the IPCC reports which reflect peer reviewed studies conducted by thousands of working scientists from all over the world. These summarized reports are “signed off” by the Acadamies of Science in virtually all the developed countries of the world. You can, of course, go to the original studies, but this involves MUCH more work. You may also read any of the hundreds of books published by creditable climate scientists and others who specialize in relevant fields. Likewise you can follow the writings of working scientists on any of the large number of websites and blogs available.

    On the matter of “belief”, your corespondents should be aware that science is not about belief. I believe in God. I do not “believe” in the law of gravity, or the theory of evolution. I may have ideas related to the world I share with over six billion others, but if I wish to confirm or disconfirm my “ideas”, I either have to conduct experiments to achieve this result, or rely on others who abide by the scientific protocols accepted in the scientific community.

    Truth has a way of filtering to the top only after many investigators have rigorously examined the issue and reasonably presented their findings.When the discussion stops consensus has been reached.

  57. Ian L. McQueen says:

    This same topic was the subject of a 20-minute interview Tuesday on the CBC radio program “Q”. The interviewee was Andrew Hoffmann, Prof. of Sustainable Enterprise (I kid you not!) at a Michigan university. The theme was “backlash against climate change science”. It fitted in with the CBC’s continued promotion of the AGW hypothesis. I will be sending a letter of protest and correction, but I have to go out soon and it will have to wait until late afternoon. The program can be heard via the internet, though when I just checked (http://www.cbc.ca/q/) they listed only up to Monday. Probably it will be available later today (Wednesday).

    IanM

  58. polistra says:

    Maybe this would help sway the beliefs of American females, though I’m no longer convinced that anything can cure their insanity:

    German cancer lab finds that CFL’s emit an “electrical smog” full of carcinogens whenever they’re turned on, not just when you break them:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8462626/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-contain-cancer-causing-chemicals.html

  59. kim says:

    Hugh believes, and is safe and secure.
    ===============

  60. starzmom says:

    HP: Are those IPCC reports the same ones that included off the cuff comments by someone about the longevity of the Himalayan glaciers, and cited popular mountaineering and travel magazines for so-called facts? Thank, but I’ll go to the original sources. My experience has shown that often, the original source is at least partially misquoted and misrepresented. If you are too lazy to go to the original source, then you deserve the criticism you are getting.

  61. randomengineer says:

    Hugh Pepper — The best summaries of current “science” are the IPCC reports which reflect peer reviewed studies conducted by thousands of working scientists from all over the world.

    Someone has to believe this is true, and it may as well be you. Notes:

    1. The IPCC reports are chock full of opinion pieces written by green advocates and masqueraded as science by cleverly mixing these in with any real science.

    2. Meanwhile that which can be classified as real science also contains plenty of poorly done stuff. Read McIntyre and others whose eviscerations of this tripe are well known by interested readers. The proof that McIntyre et al are correct can be inferred from the reactions of those affected. In particular some journals are being *forced* to accept papers from these critics because they find themselves in the untenable position of having to do so. Until recently the “consensus” view was flogged in part by the notion of critic credibility (i.e. no credibility if not part of peer review, which wwas rigged to not allow critics.) This is SLOWLY being corrected.

    3. The UN IPCC is a political body, not scientific. IPCC recommendations are almost entirely framed in terms of leftist/socialist (nanny) agenda where the presumption is that governments issue orders which are simply obeyed.

    4. The politics of most countries are not how the USA works; in the USA a top down government doesn’t issue edicts regarding what the subjects will do. Rather, the USA is a republic which contains citizens. The point is that it’s unsurprising that the less inclined a country is for top down edict (i.e. citizens vs subjects) the more vocal the opposition.

    5. Neither you not the idiot professor seem to have much of a handle on the notion of individual rights and how the perception of these informs one’s politics. If you believe you are free then you don’t believe the government has any right to tell you (e.g.) whether you can own a firearm. And so on. Left wingers think the government solves problems. Right wingers regard the government AS the problem. Global warming solutions as proposed by left wingers invoke massive governmental intervention.

    Were the “believers” to suggest that we craft laws rewarding business and individual enterprise for solving what is stated as a “problem” then you would not see the political kerfluffle we presently have. But the “believers” aren’t going to do this; they also believe that the government solves problems. Therefore, they are actually CREATING the skeptics and deniers they hold in such low regard. The professor can’t see this. He’s an imbecile. This ain’t exactly rocket surgery.

  62. BarryW says:

    Hugh Pepper

    Just because someone has a theory and publishes papers doesn’t mean they’re right. Check how many times science has gone off the rails where the consensus was proven totally wrong. Plate Tectonics if you want an example. If you’d been following along here or at Climate Audit or any of a number of sites, you’d know of the political manipulation that has gone on in the IPCC and how anyone who did not believe in CAGW was marginalized (and we’re talking about published mainstream scientists). Look at Climategate, the hockeystick debate and others to see where politics has overtaken science. The science is only “settled” because the politics has been “settled”. Go to Lucia’s site and see how well the IPCC estimate and the models are doing doing against reality. Go to surfacestations.org and see how badly the siting is. So far the testable hypothesis have failed to be confirmed yet the consensus holds. Who are the real denialists, those who believe reality or those who treat computer models like augurs?

  63. Vegasarcher says:

    “Michigan State University has been working to advance the common good”

    Where does that phrase take you?

  64. Wellington says:

    Another day, another social study. I’ve read it so you don’t have to.

    Similar to the Yale study that Anthony linked recently, it is another engineering project disguised as a scientific paper, i.e. it pretends to objectively study the American population but the underlying question is not a scientific “what is” but rather “we know we have a problem with the citizens and we need to find a way to fix it”. They are not very subtle about it.

    It doesn’t just acknowledge “consensus climate science”. It actively promotes it.

    It’s not trying to solve the problem of our limited understanding of society but rather trying to solve the problem of the erosion of support for the “right policies” that is caused by conservatives, Republicans and the Koch brothers.

    The study is not much of “social science” —whatever the merits of such a thing—but rather “social engineering”.

    The good thing: They acknowledge don’t know what to do.

    Quotes:

    “Reducing climate skepticism among this large segment of the American populace will require far more than simply providing additional information.”

    “Indeed, the rise of the Tea Party and rightward drift of the Republican party created a situation in which skepticism toward climate change became a litmus test …”

    “Tea Party was stimulated by some of the same political-economic elites that have directly supported climate change denial. Most notable are Charles and David Koch, of Koch Industries, who have funded organizations that actively promote the Tea Party as well as climate change denial (Greenpeace 2010; Mayer 2010).”

  65. Wellington says:

    Typo correction:
    The good thing: They acknowledge they don’t know what to do.

  66. Jim says:

    Obviously, this is a social problem or a political problem, not a science problem. Sheesh!

  67. TonyG says:

    “growing scientific consensus” – I don’t think they occupy the same universe that I do..

  68. DonS says:

    Keith Battye says:
    April 20, 2011 at 5:17 am

    A cogent exposition on the most glaring example of do-gooder catastrophe in Africa. Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa before the British Labor Party and European socialists decided that white rule had to end. The citizens of what was then Rhodesia, black and white, enjoyed an extremely high living standard. How has anyone’s life been improved by the change to the current situation?
    Mr. Battye, get out of there, please.

  69. Jack Greer says:

    @Laws of Nature

    Anthony has zero interest in correcting/clarifying obvious errors, sometimes even on featured posts w/ clearly faulty analysis. Anything that sows seeds of doubt on any aspect of this incredibly complex subject, accurate or not, IS his objective. WUWT provides an equal platform for the obviously inaccurate/unsupported/misinterpreted … as long as the gist supports of a very particular POV. There are some WUWT participants on the skeptical side that understand this too, and sometime they’ll actually partake in poking holes in the misinformation – I imagine them rolling their eyes on some of the content here, just as I do.

    REPLY: Greer – go find another blog to hassle if you don’t like this one, really, I insist, since your entire history here has been denigration. Factual errors in posts are corrected when they are pointed out, differences of opinion on certain issues that your don’t like shall remain. Once I start trying to correct the thousands of comments every day, I enter the “no time left in my life” zone and enter the world of argumentum ad infinitum. Or I could be like your buddies, RC, Romm, and Tamino, and simply delete comments regularly – Anthony

  70. Deborah says:

    “Women more likely than men to accept global warming.”

    Hmmm…. Nobody ever asked me. And my extent of belief went something like this: “Oh? Our air conditioners will make it warmer here in Michigan? Here, let me turn it up and open the windows!”

    That’s exactly how seriously I ever took it.

  71. Steve Oregon says:

    Even Hugh Pepper should be able to grasp this.
    Then he can apologise.

    Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

    http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/35681.html

    Excerpts:

    “A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.”
    It’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K).”

    Part One: Coolant Carbon Dioxide

    carbon dioxide (CO2) actually works as a coolant when it interacts with water vapor in the atmosphere. “Carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases merely serve to make the atmosphere cooler in daytime, warmer at nighttime. This is what empirical evidence tells us. ”

    Step Two: How the IPCC Picked Wrong Numbers from the Get-go

    “It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

    Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

    a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by 0.36 percent.
    the proverbial doubling of CO2 would only contribute a change of 0.0040C at the surface”.

    Step Three: Exposing the Idiocy

    Groupthink is ‘Step Three’ in our explanation of how climatology got itself into such a muddle.
    “Yesterday a professor tried to tell me that a blackbody (BB) would heat itself up if its radiation would shine back on it – if it was surrounded completely by a perfect mirror.
    Postma then enlightened the perplexed professor that it’s impossible to make candles or insulation warm itself by its own radiation, in terms of radiation and conduction being analogous modes of heat transfer. Then it becomes plainly obvious and ridiculous.

    If an object can heat itself via its own, or “colder” radiation, then it should also be able to heat itself by conducting with itself, or conducting with a cold body.

    “An object conducting with itself to make itself hotter? What the heck does that even mean? An object conducting with a colder one and thereby becoming hotter? I don’t think so,” insists Postma.

    Thus when we start to accept that conduction and radiation are analogous modes of heat transfer, then it dawns on us all that the laws work the same way with both of them.

    Therefore, by working through this ‘Three Step Greenhouse Effect Debunk’ we are left with only one conclusion: IPCC junk (generalist) science is well and truly busted by the specialists in their fields.

  72. Charlie Foxtrot says:

    Let’s not bash poor HP any more. Facts don’t matter to him anyway, so a deluge of facts he is not interested in will not change his belief system. Anyone who thinks the IPCC is a reliable source of information on climate is beyond reasoning with.

  73. Richard Day says:

    Call me when a sociology professor wins the Nobel Prize in physics or chemistry.

    Do NOT call me for any old idiot who wins the Peace prize.

  74. TomB says:

    Mike McMillan says:
    April 20, 2011 at 12:21 am

    I think he meant “Notre Dame”, not “North Dakota”.
    brc says:
    April 19, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    Couldn’t agree more. The mistaken impression these people get that it’s the politicians leading the people rather than the politicians responding to their constituents is insane. One of the right’s constant criticisms of Bill Clinton was that he went “which ever way the polls pointed”. A long time ago I was taught that this was what was called “representative democracy”. No, I’m not a Clinton fan. But at least he “got it”.

    I didn’t vote for you to go in and do what you want to do. I voted for you to go in and do what I want you to do.

  75. Tom in St. Johns says:

    This is personally very disturbing since my son will be attending the Lyman Briggs college at Michigan State where the lead author teaches indoctrinates the students. I will have to let him know that Professor McCright is on the “we won’t pay for those credit hours” list.

  76. tj says:

    The right and left are just two fake constructs used to corral the sheep. They work hand-in-hand, winking and nodding the masses into the pen of totalitarianism. These philosophies of right and left were written by different puppets, but paid for by one master. The whole point of keeping good citizens at each others’ throats works not only for global warming, change, disruption, but for many so-called differences we all argue about — in other words, the goal is the arguing and polarization of the population. Do not fall for the ploy.

  77. mike restin says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    April 20, 2011 at 5:55 am

    “I may have ideas related to the world I share with over six billion others, but if I wish to confirm or disconfirm my “ideas”, I either have to conduct experiments to achieve this result, or rely on others who abide by the scientific protocols accepted in the scientific community.”

    When will these ‘experiments using scientific protocols’ begin at IPCC?
    Maybe I need to re-read the harry read me file. Must have missed something in those climategate emails.

    Hugh, wake up!

  78. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    ATTN: Mr Lynn on April 20, 2011 at 5:48 am

    The present BC gov is the “liberal party”, which is actully a right of center of party. The opposition is the new democratic party which is left of center and is supported by labour.

    I am absolutely amazed how easily both parties have been flim-flamed by the white-coated wiseguys like Andy Weaver at the Univ. of Victoria.

  79. Laws of Nature says:

    Dear eadler,

    As for the difference between a skeptic and a denier, I think my original post was quite clear . . . denial seems to happen very often when healthy skeptism is missing!
    As for direct effect of a CO2-doubling (however impossible it seems that is could happen in a real atmosphere), it can be calculated easily enough…
    Assuming that the surface balances for an additional backradiation of 3.7W/m^2:
    (393.7 /(5.6704*10^-8))^0.25-(390 /(5.6704*10^-8))^0.25=0.63 Kelvin
    with the Stefan-Boltzmann-constant 5.6704*10^-8 Wm^-2K-4 and
    the Stefan-Boltzmann-law Emisson = sigma T^2

    But please consider that the 3.7W/m^2 is an IPCC-number and might be on the high side (there was an article about that here at WUWT a few weeks ago)

  80. George E. Smith says:

    It’s a universal phenomenon. Everything is NOT the same. Some people are taller than some other people. Once you notice that, you can get a government taxpayer funded grant to study the degree to which some people are taller than some other people. After you publish your results, you can then apply for another taxpayer funded government research grant to study the degree to which some people are shorter than some other people.

    Do these latest researchers ever consider that they may be doing the wrong study first.

    Shouldn’t they be trying to find out why some people who don’t believe in global warming; well at least of the man-made catastrophic globally disruptive kind, happen to become Republicans, rather than Democrats.

    Do the clodus cause the surface warming; or does the surface warming cause the clouds ?

    So I’m neither a Democrat, nor a Republican, so does that mean I am not aloud to have an opinion on MMGWCCGCD ?

  81. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” Jack Greer says:
    April 20, 2011 at 8:12 am
    @Laws of Nature

    Anthony has zero interest in correcting/clarifying obvious errors, sometimes even on featured posts w/ clearly faulty analysis. Anything that sows seeds of doubt on any aspect of this incredibly complex subject, accurate or not, IS his objective. “””””

    Aren’t you making an assumption that what (appears) “obviously faulty” to YOU, is therefore “obviously faulty” to Anthony ?

    It seems to me, that it is the so-called “main stream” media, where the “reporters” take it upon themselves to “edit” a story to put their own spin on it; rather than repoprting the story as it was revealed, and allowing the readers to do their own due diligence, to research the veracity of the account.

    I don’t get the feeling, that too many visitors here come with the idea of having Anthony give them a learned dissertation on some new scientific discovery. Just bringing these accounts out in the open, is itself, an invaluable contribution.

  82. MalcolmR says:

    I do indeed find it depressing that polarisation is increasing – no matter what the truth of the matter is. Polarisation is a terrible thing regardless of the issue at stake, because it reduces the chances of dialogue and of ever getting a consensus; it makes both sides screech with ever more desparation, and increases the chances of either side turning their argument into a blind religion.

    The worst aspect of humanity is war, and what is war other than polarisation of ideas taken to the extreme?

  83. R. Gates says:

    This big difference between Dems and Republicans on this issue further illustrates why its logical for me to be a proud Independent.

  84. TheOnlyPomi says:

    I wonder if the professor ever bothered to verify the scientific evidences “hands on” or simply trusted the ‘scientific consensus’ proclaims…

  85. Mr Lynn says:

    Harold Pierce Jr says:
    April 20, 2011 at 9:49 am
    ATTN: Mr Lynn on April 20, 2011 at 5:48 am

    The present BC gov is the “liberal party”, which is actully a right of center of party. The opposition is the new democratic party which is left of center and is supported by labour.

    I am absolutely amazed how easily both parties have been flim-flamed by the white-coated wiseguys like Andy Weaver at the Univ. of Victoria.

    Good grief! Is there no one in the BC legislature who can rise up and point out that the white-coated priests of the University temple are wearing no clothes? Has not a word of Climategate and the scandal of faux science penetrated to this hinterland?

    More to the point, is everyone in BC a statist?

    /Mr Lynn

  86. A. Capitalist says:

    Alas, taking polls on opinion is once again trotted out in the same breath as the utterance of “science”.
    I can not prove or disprove anything with opinion. I need objective data from a reasonably reliable and acurate source (or better yet many sources), that have a previous status and a post status. A theory that describes the change from the previous data state to the post data state is only the seed of science.
    Repetition, Prediction, Publication and Review get you closer.
    Perhaps, our friends can get more converts to their science if they open all the books, emails, tree rings, core samples, reviews etc. That experiment seems to hold to high a risk. Truth may slip out.
    If the risk to our species is truly in crisis, then why does risk their work, grants, reputation, finances and future standing matter. Have they no love for those who don’t understand. Show them the truth. Wave the uncontestable data under their noses. Declare your hypothesis. Dare them to refute the conclusions.
    Stand up, earn the title of scientist and be remembered well.
    Ad hominum attacks may win you some opinion polls, but the future will remember where and how you stood.

  87. Steve Oregon says:

    Gee I wonder why those who are on the wrong side of the polarization are the biggest critics of polarization?

    MalcolmR -April 20, 2011 at 10:43 am
    “I do indeed find it depressing that polarization is increasing – no matter what the truth of the matter is. Polarization is a terrible thing regardless of the issue at stake,”

    You might was well said “Polarization is a terrible thing regardless of the truth”.

    How convenient for those who prefer less polarization don’t mind less truth in order to provide it.

    So we should all live with and accept all the BS it takes to keep polarization in check?

    Hey how about this instead.

    The truth and polarization removes the offenders of the truth from their jobs and policy making.
    Once they’re gone we can work on all getting along.

  88. 1DandyTroll says:

    Hot, cold, cold, hot. Only the warmizts cares. To the crazed climate communist hippie the world is either going to become too hot, or too cold (as was seen, and heard, in the seventies), yet they have no rational empirical evidence that that has ever been the case and they have zilch intelligent solutions if it were the case. The rational cold headed people adapts.

    Is it any wonder that extremists are extreme and paints their delusional reality accordingly?

    The statistical climate is, always, either going to be too hot or too cold, for the foreseeable future (until the crazed climate communist hippie geoengineering circus takes over), never in equilibrium.

    What if they got what they asked for, that mirage of a perfect balanced climate, where the temperature is just so so, but would life survive with an atmosphere composition that would give us such a perfect balanced climate?

  89. Gary Swift says:

    The widening of the apparent gap in poll results may not be reflective of reality. Exact wording of poll questions has a profound effect on the results. Over the span of the cited polls, the issues have become much more refined, and poll results are likely to reflect a trend towards more pointed wording of the questions.

  90. TonyG says:

    Steve Oregon says:
    Gee I wonder why those who are on the wrong side of the polarization are the biggest critics of polarization?

    It appears to me that those who holler the loudest about polarization are the same ones who are most responsible for it.

  91. Jim says:

    This is a desperate attempt to keep one half of the political divide on the Warmist side. Most of my friends are democratic but of late they are completely taken back at how bad the warmist science really is. The Warmists are failing at convincing Democrats that to be a good Democrat you have to be a Warmist. The game is over, truth be told, Obama is a lukewarmer at best and that is being surrounded day in and day out by warmist ideologues.

  92. Gary Hladik says:

    “Polarization” is one of those emotionally charged words a politician uses to frame an issue in a manner favorable to his side. That is, if I disagree with you I’m merely dissenting, whereas if you disagree with me you”re “polarizing” the issue.

    In reality, of course, if you disagree with me it’s just because you’re a [self-censored] nitwit. :-)

  93. Fraxinus says:

    Another factor may be that poll respondents read the polls’ press releases. In the late 80′s early 90′s , Handgun Control Inc. commissioned a series of polls asking “Do you support reasonable gun laws?”. With no definition of what was a reasonable gun law, people who had incompatible views of gun laws both said yes. By the mid 90′s respondents to these polls who did not support banning firearms no longer answered yes to this question. This is because in the interim Handgun Control had been releasing the results claiming that because a majority supported “reasonable gun laws”, a majority supported banning firearms.

  94. jaymam says:

    Steve Oregon says:
    “The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

    That depends on whether you are measuring the sunlight on the part of the Earth facing the sun, i.e. 1368 W/m^2 or on the other side of the Earth where it is 0 W/m^2 or at the poles where the sun is at around a 90 degree angle.

    The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2
    The area of a circle (i.e. facing the sun) is pi*r^2
    The average inward flux for the whole Earth’s surface is therefore a quarter of 1368, i.e. 342 W/m^2.

    However when calculating the flux emitted by the Earth, the whole of the Earth’s suface should be included.

  95. Theo Goodwin says:

    Steve Oregon says:
    April 19, 2011 at 10:27 pm
    “Here in Oregon, home of Jane Lubchenco and with an unfair disproportianate share of lunatics it’s essentially a complete party line- AGW vs skeptics split.”

    What part of Oregon? Eugene has been a hotbed of Greens and health-food-fascists since the Sixties. Cook a goose for Canadian Thanksgiving and you have proved your Redneck credentials, despite your Phd.

  96. Theo Goodwin says:

    Schembechler created the country’s best run-blocking offensive lines during his tenure at Michigan. Michigan has a great program and will be back. However, the vast majority of the students could care less.

  97. Theo Goodwin says:

    TonyG says:
    April 20, 2011 at 7:58 am
    “growing scientific consensus” – I don’t think they occupy the same universe that I do..

    It’s fervor. The mass of humanity is beginning to stamp feet, whirl about, throw arms to the sky, and wail at the CO2.

  98. Theo Goodwin says:

    jaymam says:
    April 20, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    The average inward flux for the whole Earth’s surface is therefore a quarter of 1368, i.e. 342 W/m^2.

    Actually, that figure is another in an endless list of age old assumptions used by the Warmista. The satellite that crashed and burned recently was supposed to get some actual figures for the top of the atmosphere. When it comes to launching these satellites for crucial empirical work, NASA is 0 for 2 over the last two years. Not one person at NASA has been fired as a result of these critical mistakes.

  99. john henry says:

    I really think that it is an amazing consensus of scientists when I see things like the Petition Project. (http://www.petitionproject.org/). The names and qualifications of these scientists who disagree are just ignored by the media. There may be things to study and questions to ask, but there is no consensus and the science is not settled.

  100. Professor Bob Ryan says:

    For best part of a century the world was divided ‘left’ and ‘right’ by those who believed the social theories of Karl Marx that wealth should ultimately belong to and be controlled by the state, and those who believed that wealth belongs to and should be controlled by the individual. The latter proposition that the individual acting freely through the medium of markets won a dramatic victory with the collapse of communism in the soviet union. My concern about this whole debate is that environmentalism – the concern we should all have for the planet, its resources and all its inhabitants – should be hijacked by the left who defeated in the economic and social arena turn to the environment to win their argument through their support of the AGW hypothesis. The extent to which human action does or can influence the environment is a very serious issue and one where we needed the best of science to resolve. Sadly, what we have seen, are examples of the worst kind of science – science manipulated for political ends rather than science exploring the limits of truth. Luckily the counter-revolution, this time, is not going the left’s way.

    ps: although I do not agree with some of what appears on this site Anthony deserves great credit for keeping open a forum for debate where all sides, if they wish, can have their say. We should say a big thank you to Anthony and to the power of the internet.

  101. Jack Greer says:

    Anthony Reply: Greer – go find another blog to hassle if you don’t like this one, really, I insist, since your entire history here has been denigration. Factual errors in posts are corrected when they are pointed out, differences of opinion on certain issues that your don’t like shall remain. Once I start trying to correct the thousands of comments every day, I enter the “no time left in my life” zone and enter the world of argumentum ad infinitum. Or I could be like your buddies, RC, Romm, and Tamino, and simply delete comments regularly – Anthony

    First, let me say that I like your technology posts – for example, solar w/o silicon, the experimental combustion engine design, new hydroelectric design, thorium nuclear reactors, etc. Also, I’m totally in favor of improving the accuracy the land-based temperature stations … nothing wrong with that. Second, yes, you do make corrections to your posts when you are called out on comments that are so egregiously wrong that you have no choice. And third, I certainly don’t expect you to individually correct/delete responses to your feature posts.

    The problem is you offer no opinion to counter or discourage clearly inaccurate comments. None. In fact you encourage misperceptions by feeding them frivolous ‘red meat’ posts, e.g. selective local weather reports, geographically narrow findings, .etc, which invariably result in most predictable responses from the “gallery of mindless circular confirmation”. You also encourage misperceptions by featuring poorly supported skeptic pseudoscience – for example, the abysmal graphs and analysis in D’Aleo’s “Ten Major Failures”, the weak original analysis and subsequent defense of Hall’s ice core posts, your own baseline nonsense in the “Hansen’s Need To Explain” post (did you post that promised follow-up commentary?), etc. The more knowledgeable skeptics here can’t feel good about that …

    /thread hijack

    REPLY: Well Jack, if you can do a better job, start your own blog. I think I’ve done pretty well with no funding, no staff, and a few volunteers. I’m not paid six figures like Joe Romm or Marc Morano to do this, yet WUWT beats both of those blogs in traffic and linkage. Certainly you are entitled to those opinions you hold, but what you describe can be applied to blogs you agree with as well. Anyone who wants to do a guest post is welcome, even if I disagree with it. As an example, “Tamino” who regularly takes pot shots from the veil of anonymity was offered guest posts here, twice, to offer “corrections” and has not the courage to do so, yet like you continues to denigrate this blog and me. As for corrections, see the latest post on Hansen for one done proactively.

    As for the “no time left in my life” I have to go to work, so I won’t waste time contributing to the “thread hijack”. – Anthony

  102. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” jaymam says:
    April 20, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    Steve Oregon says:
    “The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.” “””””

    Well the latest recommended figure from NASA, is actually about 1362 W/m^2, of which about 1000 may reach the ground, after scattering and absorption by the atmospehre (cloudless sky).

    It most certainly is NOT 342, nor even 340.5 W/m^2, that is going into the earth’s oceans to be stored at great depths. Adn the relationship, between irradiance and peak Temperature reached is non-linear (inverse 4th power), so you cannot simply average over the whole surface to learn the effect. Mother Gaia does not do averages.

    The Antarctic winter midnight highlands, do not receive 430.5 w/m^2 even on average, and that is why sometimes the Temeprature can get down to -90 deg C. That could never happen, with an average input of 340.5 W/m^2.

    At exactly the same time, the north African and Middle Eastern tropical deserts can get up to +60 deg C surface Temperatures, and UHIs like parking lots, in those same areas, can reach + 90 deg C.

    So the thermal radiant emission form the various earth surfaces, varies by over an order of magnitude, and the spectral peak of those emissions, can range from around 15.0 microns, at Vostok Station, to perhaps as low as 7.5 microns, for those UHIs, and the consequences for earth cooling, are simply that the tropical deserts are the earth’s main cooling centers. The polar regions, are very inefficient, at cooling the earth. They receive very little radiation, so it doesn’t matter what the surface reflectance is they don’t have much to reflect in the first place, and they emit even less.

  103. D. Patterson says:

    jaymam says:
    April 20, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Correct. Add to that the variables involved with fluctuations in the atmosphere’s shape, size, orientation, and depth due to expansion, contraction, solar wind, Lunar tides, Rosby Waves, and more.

  104. PhilJourdan says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    April 19, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change.

    Nice way to change the subject. No one is talking about climate change. It changes constantly. What is being talked about is Anthropogenic Climate Change (warming, disruption or giggle bunnies – your choice).

    The evidence is overwhelming for these people.

    What evidence? that climate changes? See above.

    FOX news followers, who are mostly Republicans, are still arguing about the “theory of evolution”, gay marriage, and abortion.

    Nice way to totally discredit yourself. That statement indicates you have no idea what you are talking about (but the first statement you made was a real clue too).

    The only reason that there is any skeptical discussion about climate change and global warming, is because the (mainly) “skeptical PR barrage has succeeded in creating an impression that there is still doubt in the scientific community regarding these critical issues. This “doubt” is slowing down the change process and creating circumstances which are becoming increasingly dangerous.

    No, the doubt is held by all scientists. The religious priesthood has no doubt. A real scientists knows that the number of FACTS (no doubt) are preciously few. And the number of theories (very little doubt) are not much greater. AGW or ACC or GCD is not even a theory, so real scientists know there is a lot of doubt. Regardles of whether they believe ACC to be happening or not.

  105. PhilJourdan says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    April 20, 2011 at 5:55 am

    The best summaries of current “science” are the IPCC reports which reflect peer reviewed studies conducted by thousands of working scientists from all over the world.

    Now I know you do not know what you are talking about. You can redeem yourself if you can state (within a 10% margin of error) how many non-peer reviewed works were referenced by the IPCC AR4. I doubt you will even get to within 90%.

  106. Theo Goodwin says:

    Professor Bob Ryan writes:
    “My concern about this whole debate is that environmentalism – the concern we should all have for the planet, its resources and all its inhabitants – should be hijacked by the left who defeated in the economic and social arena turn to the environment to win their argument through their support of the AGW hypothesis.”

    Right you are, Sir. And they are succeeding remarkably well. If anyone ever doubted that The Big Lie can be incredibly effective then the CAGW proves them wrong. Of course, the real tragedy is that scientists now have to compete with used-car-salesmen for respect.

  107. Hugh Pepper says:

    to Phil Jourdan
    The evidence of warming caused by humans is, in fact, overwhelming, Phil. You may disagree with this statement, but it is a fact. You can argue any other position, but you have to have more than passionate “words”to make your case. Evidence is appearing in respected journals all over the world and it is summarized, after intensive scrutiny by the IPCC and Academies of SCience in all the developed countries. This is not a controversial statement. It is merely a FACT.

  108. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper says:

    “The evidence of warming caused by humans…”

    You’re looking at it wrong. Provide verifiable evidence of global damage due to CO2, and people will sit up straight and pay attention. In fact, there is no such evidence.

    So repeat after me:

    “CO2 is harmless!

    CO2 is beneficial!

    Warm is good!

    Cold is bad!”

    Repeat, until you’ve rid yourself of the silly “carbon” meme.

  109. Hugh Pepper says:

    Sorry Smokey, you’re wrong on all counts. The evidence is there. You will find it by following the IPCC links, and on web sites that attract working scientists ( Real Science. org, for example). Whole books have been written on this subject, containing the “evidence”. But then you have already demonized their authors, thereby discrediting the findings.

    CO2, like water, can really be too much of a good thing.

  110. PhilJourdan says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    April 22, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Sorry hugh, the only fact in your posting is that you wrote it – whoever hugh are.

    Please come back when you have some real facts, not suppositions and talking points.

  111. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper,

    You misunderstand the meaning of “evidence” per the scientific method. Raw temperature data is evidence. Reliable proxies such as the GISP-2 and Vostok ice cores are evidence. Global satellite measurements are evidence. MLO CO2 measurements are evidence. The ARGO buoy measurements are evidence.

    But GCMs – computer climate models – are not evidence. The IPCC’s so-called “evidence” is model-based, it is not based on empirical [real world], testable, verifiable EVIDENCE. And that’s the problem: GIGO.

  112. SGeorge says:

    Gravity what is it how does it work? We can only give descriptions of it. Einstein described gravity as a warping of space. Please tell me how space is warped.

    Science is a process of gaining information, predicting future actions from that information and testing to see if new information supports the predictions.

    Just remember smoking does not cause cancer and is no way involved in its cause, that was the story being told the public for over 40 years. It’s just that people who are just more prone to cancer than the general public smoke. Information in the public domain causes opinions obfuscation causes the polarization. Just like Dr. Bill Frist of Tenn. who said that from watching an edited film that a comatose woman was reacting to stimuli. After her death and an autopsy it was show that she was not reacting to stimuli. He was working not from a medical but a political position and used the color of medicine to give it respectability in the public arena.

    The problem is that information is put out and you don’t know who is behind it. The confusion over climate change is just such an event. The power companies, oil, and coal have a vested interest in the proceedings. They care not about the truth facts or the impact on the world jsut the impact on their wallets. The public doesn’t have the information on what is happening. Aside the 1970′s global cooling was caused by jet aircraft and their vapor trails reflecting the sun light since that had just started happening in a large degree by the new planes that had not be in existence its effects over rode the warming effect of CO2 and other green house gasses.

    Remember just because it is not warmer where you are doesn’t mean that it isn’t warmer else where. Glaciers are retreating, the sea level is rising, these are facts ask Venice, look at Alaska, Greenland, Iceland, the Alps, Antarctica, and the Andes.

    Facts are observations. Theories are guesses about the future based on the observations of the past. Opinions are guesses about the future based on human greed.

Comments are closed.