Harris Poll: Europeans Tend to Care More Strongly about Climate Change than Americans

UPDATE: Related, a Pew Poll says fewer respondents also see global warming as a very serious problem; 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

harris_poll

From a press release by the Harris Poll sponsored by the Financial Times

Fewer Americans than people in 5 largest European countries give “green” responses in 6-nation Financial Times/Harris Poll on climate change

New York, NY — October 22, 2009 — A new Financial Times/Harris Poll in the United States and the five largest European countries finds that Americans under 65 are less likely than Europeans to see climate change as a major threat, to see the need for a new international agreement on climate change as a top priority or to favor increased aid to developing countries to help them deal with climate change. However, most people in all six countries agree, when asked, that signing a new treaty on climate change should be one of our top priorities.

These are some of the findings of a Financial Times/Harris Poll conducted online by Harris Interactive among 6,463 adults aged less than 65 in France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Italy and the United States between September 30 and October 7, 2009.

While there are a few exceptions, smaller proportions of Americans than of Europeans under 65 seem to be worried about climate change or to support policies to address it.

For example:

• While large majorities of people over 65 in all six countries see climate change as posing a threat to the world, fewer Americans (27%), than people in Britain (31%), France (46%), Italy (49%) or Spain (35%) see it as a “large threat.”

• In Europe, between 60% (in Britain) and 89% (in Italy) believe that, when governments meet in Copenhagen, “signing a new treaty . . . on climate change” should be one of the top priorities. In the United States, a lower 53% feel this way.

• Majorities of working people in France (67%), Spain (67%), and Italy (57%) believe that their employers “should be doing more” to “reduce their environmental impact.” Slightly less than half of workers in the United States (45%), Britain (44%) and Germany (48%) feel this way.

• Not many people under 65 in any of the six countries say they would be willing to pay more taxes to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and on this question the United States (21%) is in the middle of the pack, below Spain (29%), and Italy (23%) but above Britain (16%) France (15%) and Germany (15%).

• Far fewer people under 65 in the United States (12%) and in Britain (12%) than in Spain (36%), France (30%), Italy (26%) and Germany (20%) would like the products they buy to have labels showing “the amount of carbon emitted in the course of their production.”

• Americans (20%) are also much less likely than the Italians (54%), Spaniards (53%), French (52%) or Germans (51%) to support additional aid to developing countries to help them deal with climate change. The British (31%) are somewhat closer to Americans on this issue.

• Majorities in all five European countries, 51% in Britain and more than 60% in France, Italy, Spain and Germany believe that the world will be in a worse position “if there is no agreement at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December.” In the United States, a lower 45% believe this.

There is one related issue, however, on which Americans are more likely to feel strongly. Fully 83% of Americans under 65 believe the United States needs to reduce oil and gas imports from other countries. Those who feel this way in the other five countries vary from 50% in France to 71% in Italy.

So what?

In the early days of the environmental movement, following the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Americans were probably more concerned about the environment than people in most, possibly all, other countries. This poll shows that this is no longer the case. This is important because democratically elected governments are responsive to public opinion, even if they do not always do what majorities would like them to do.

Having said that, it is important to note that majorities, mostly large majorities, in all six countries including the United States, believe that signing a new climate change treaty should be “one of the top priorities.”

Note: The full questions asked can be seen here

Methodology

This FT/Harris Poll was conducted online by Harris Interactive among a total of 6,463 adults aged 16-64 within France (1,151), Germany (1,033), Great Britain (1,126), Spain (1,076) and the United States (1,017), and adults aged 18-64 in Italy (1,060) between September 30 and October 7, 2009. Figures for age, sex, education, region and Internet usage were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult populations of the respective countries. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls and of the British Polling Council.

Advertisements

176 thoughts on “Harris Poll: Europeans Tend to Care More Strongly about Climate Change than Americans

  1. Question the uninformed and you get…. dibs on uninformation if the word doesn’t already exist.

  2. Spaniards use to call us, southamericans, “sudacas” (those stupids and poor southerners), but my guess is that when the americas were discovered and europeans began to emigrate here, the strongest individuals of their race came here, so the nowadays europeans are the descendants of those ,the feebler among them, who did not dare to make the trip.

  3. Interpretation.
    “Our Government needs to do something to save the world, and give aid to poor contries, but they better not increase my taxes”
    This makes no scence. The people of the world are stupeder than I thought possible. I now have no hope that this will blow over because no one has the capability of rational thought.

  4. Headline that was not used: “Large majorities in US and Europe do not think climate change is a big threat” even when push-polled on green attitudes.
    By the way, what is the official doom-for-the-planet-if-no-treaty deadline now? 20 days? Did we already miss it?

  5. Ah, I see. UN information. As opposed to dis-information, non-information, lack-of-information, uneducated guesswork, etc, etc.
    All this poll seems to “prove” is that so long as you pay attention to those who have drunk the kool-aid, dispense the kool-aid or recommend the kool-aid you do not need to drink any yourself.

  6. Could it possibly be that Americans are better informed than Europeans?
    We do read such things as, Trail Ridge Road, the highway through Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park, had its seasonal closure on October 3 @ 9:27 p.m., nearly 3 weeks earlier than the average closing date of October 23.
    http://archive.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=125506
    This is not, directly, an Al Gore snowy event, but Senators Udall and McCain did tour the park in August “…to look for signs of global climate change.”
    Not all Americans are well informed.

  7. Europe, after failing to catch USA until 2010 as a technology leader (it was official plan of EU in typical 5-years Soviet planning way) hopes that a carbon burden would slow US development more than it will slow EU development. USA is vivid embarrassment for all European elites, because despite socialist theories, it was free market and personal responsibility, which made US so rich.
    It is similar when lazy scum votes for socialists promising tax increase for rich – they hope they will somehow parasite on those money, or at least they will do some harm to the rich because of pure jealousy.

  8. I guess this shows that Americans are realists. I have always contended that people who are crammed into a small spaces look at the world as a small and limited. People who live in the city view polution differently than those living in the country or the suburbs. They live in a bubble and feel impacts of polution, noise, heat, cold immedialty. Europoeans seem to have the same phobias.
    Look at these population density figures;
    Germany 232 people per sq/km
    Netherlands 238 people per sq/km
    Italy 193 people per sq/km
    UK 246 people per sq/km
    Compared to the United States…………..31 people per sq/km
    If somone passes gas in Europe, they all know about it.

  9. Slightly OT…
    And in the UK, the home of extreme climate politics and behavioural modification par-excellance, the Act on Co2 government propoganda machinery has launched another attack to labotomize the public perception:
    http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/content/en/embeds/flash/4-degrees-large-map-final
    …an interactive advertisement for the 12c rise in temperatures (yes 12c!!!) to be seen on the US Eastern seaboard by 2060. And apparently the “data” has been peer reviewed:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLM467305
    Nice flash anim tho’.

  10. how can you make policy with only 60% off the majority behind you. While they probaly dont know what they are talking about.

  11. Results reflect the fact that there is more political and media brainwashing about AGW in Europe.
    There generally is more control of the media by the State.
    Also, because of the language barrier, many Europeans don’t have access to dissenting opinions on the web. For example, there are only a handful of french-language AGW-skeptical web sites.

  12. We are talking about a different mindset here.
    People in Europe are passive and expect their leaders and/or governments to solve problems and tell them what to do.
    People in New World countries are active and pragmatic: they tackle problems themselves or get together with neighbors and friends to solve real problems.

  13. The reason is simple enough: we don’t have an effective opposition. Both the left and the right agree with the consensus (the US left is like our right, by the way!). If you add to that the fundamentally undemocratic EU layer on top of national governments, they are all free to ramp up the propaganda as they please, as our own government here in the UK has been doing with a recent idiotic advertising campaign.

  14. Not many people under 65 in any of the six countries say they would be willing to pay more taxes to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and on this question the United States (21%) is in the middle of the pack, below Spain (29%), and Italy (23%) but above Britain (16%) France (15%) and Germany (15%).
    In a parallel study it was found similarly small percentages of Turkeys were willing to vote for christmas.

  15. When fed fake data about student polls people who’d been vocally ‘pro’ wound their necks in, according to the Ohio paper.
    Would enough adverse poll data shut us up ?

  16. In this case Americans are better informed than the Euros – who are bathed in Euro-guilt and love their Parliaments. Americans by nature are skeptical of government and when it comes to government sponsored boogiemen – they’re showing admirable disinterest. TheReason will pay.

  17. I feel sorry for the Europeans… they’re being taxed to death and now they want more taxes heaped on them… of course if they can some how wrangle a deal to have the USA pay for global warming instead of the Europeans, they will approve.

  18. I am from Europe, I suppose that is related with a more pavlovian european press response.
    The so called ‘journalism of causes’. Journalism that is supposed to ‘deliver the correct things’.
    .

  19. That’s what happens when you poll only people whose last name is “Harris.” Undoubtedly, some of them are related and share the same opinions.

  20. In Europe, between 60% (in Britain) and 89% (in Italy) believe that, when governments meet in Copenhagen, “signing a new treaty . . . on climate change” should be one of the top priorities. In the United States, a lower 53% feel this way.
    In the U.S. only 14% thought it should the top priority, whereas 39% thought it should be one of the top. I think that is a poorly constructed question. The only reason for holding the %4#* conference is to sign a treaty, and when 86% of the people (US) don’t think signing is the #1 priority, that implies to me it isn’t a priority at all.

  21. I think a lot of the poll result has to do with the wording of the question. Asking people “IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH IS WARMING” is different from DO YOU BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING. What do we define as global warming to the people , the IPCC version[ due to greenhouse gases] or just normal warming.Also over what period . Many people feel that the earth is not warming if you look at what has happened this past year where thing have been cool over the summer and winter in the northern half of US. Europe has had warmer winters than North America . Also there is less information being presented to the public in Europe about natural variability causes and more IPCC version of the science .

  22. PewResearch reports …
    There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem — 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

    Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

  23. Heh. The headline makes it sound like the poll question was, “What do you care more about – Climate Change, or Americans?
    🙂

  24. “Just the facts” (#1 commenter): the quote you copied,
    “The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years.”
    is interesting by itself because it is designed to create the impression that the steady decrease has bottomed out. Surely, no statements about the temperatures are being formulated to lead the readers believe that the temperatures have already peaked.
    Well, I think that the decrease is pretty much guaranteed to continue for a few years, and when it gets below 20% in the U.S., the official AGW orthodoxy will became unsustainable at the level of politicians and research grants.

  25. Justin Ert (08:41:47) :
    Slightly OT…
    And in the UK, the home of extreme climate politics and behavioural modification par-excellance, the Act on Co2 government propoganda machinery has lanuched another attack to labotomize the public perception:
    http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/content/en/embeds/flash/4-degrees-large-map-final
    The met office in its notes to this end of century (N.B.) temperature map admits that the model runs that produced the map provide them with a variety of results which they group into low, median, and high temperature regimes. They also admit that there is no basis for selecting one of these regimes over another.
    I am not offering any prize for guessing which one they have chosen to display… oh, and you only get one guess.

  26. @adolpho. Your comment about the European genes in South America parallel a line I frequently used while debating in the community centers (pubs) of East Anglia, to wit: “Everyone here with any get up and go got up and went two centuries ago, which means you are the produce of a depleted gene pool.”
    I strongly advise that you wear running shoes and be keenly aware of the location of the nearest exit before uttering this remark.

  27. Range is correct, but also not just in the Pavlovian response, like many media organisations, ours is simply a printing press for marketing organisations. As we discovered during the parliamentary expenses corruption scandal, “journalists” mooch about, printing whatever the spin doctors ask of them, in return for special access, interviews and so on. Environment correspondents are even worse, often not having a scientific background. No questioning goes on, in fact I doubt the correspondent even reads the journal; having the scoop on Doomsday is everything and environmental campaigners are all too willing to provide the copy. There have been some truly idiotic articles published in the press about “climate change”, many of which I would be too embarrassed to associate myself with.
    That’s why when I heard Richard Lindzen (in reply to a question as to where sceptics can find resources to counter the propaganda online) say effectively that to counter the propaganda you have to become a Climate Scientist (reading a lot), my heart sank. The issue here isn’t one of science, it’s one of marketing. Us sceptics are a disparate bunch and we don’t really have any articulate, charismatic pin-ups out there getting our point of view across in the media. We need to offer up scary frightening stories showing what may happen if the Environmentalists succeed in rolling back the industrial revolution (which surely must be their intention, as it was Konrad Lorenz’s attack on Technocracy that was one of the things starting the whole green movement off in the first place). The Environmentalists are very good at all of this and that is why if and when scientists such as Lindzen kill off this particular scare with Science alone, the next scare won’t be too far behind.
    When I see an old, crusty scientist, who’s point of view may be right, against a young, bright-eyed and assertive enviro-marketing wiz, in TV debates (on Newsnight for example), I’m struck by how ineffective the counter-position is in articulating its view.

  28. @ Range (09:07:44) :
    I am from the Netherlands, Europe, and I think you’re right. I have got the same impression. I think the European written, traditional press generally wants to be “correct”, and in the meantime forgets investigation journalism.
    A lot of people over here do regard the written, traditional press as an old fashioned institute, called “dead tree” news.
    The general opinion is that in the next decade very few “dead tree” newspapers shall survive, which means that people will gather their information from the internet. This is going to be a very fascinating time!

  29. I agree, the media is a big part of it.
    Here in the USA, network news, most sympathetic to AGW, is watched by an declining and aging demographic. Older folks also tend to get their news from traditional newspapers versus online. This probably accounts for much of the difference with older voters.
    As for Great Britain, the BBC has lost all sense of objectivity on this and they are a very strong force. They have no Rush and they have no FNC.

  30. The last few elections we had a choice between a Democrat who accepted AGW as fact and a Republican who accepted AGW as a fact. No wonder people’s views on AGW are not reflected in elections. Reagan was the only one who simply mocked the very idea of AGW with a very ahead of his time joke that cow farts were more influential than industry.
    That said, it could be that the election of fanatics is the one thing that will save the USA, but not Europe, from the passage of any real legislation at all. Draconian measures are more likely to fail than a series of half measures put in place by wimpy conservatives. The only thing that has allowed the election of a fanatic is the Republican slide away from conservatism.
    Sarah Palin qualifies as a conservative. One problem though: her understanding of science is so poor that she made fun of medical research based on the most important organism of all time, the fruit fly!

  31. Put simply, in the UK people in general, but children in particularly, are being brainwashed with the pro-AGW message through all components of the media, but especially television. In addition, our education system has been dumbed down and no longer puts a premium on the teaching of mathematics. Unsurprisingly therefore, science and engineering talent has fallen by the wayside.
    To understand the arguments of the AGW problem one needs to be able to analyse and to be aware of the need for independent and rigorous testing of cause and effect; i.e. the scientific method. So, as we are no longer encouraging enquiring minds when people are asked to respond to such a poll, sadly, the brainwashed message is what you get.

  32. OT: RealClimate Dr Michael Mann is sinking to new lows by advertising the racist, delationist garbage of Hoggan and Desmogblog! And what is so funny is that in true team spirit, he choses Bob Gelbspan’s comment about the Hoggan book to confirm his own review… No doubt a fixture of Desmogblog like Gelbspan will offer an independant, unbiased account… just like team reviewers of Mikey’s papers… LOL

  33. The 5th bullet should start “Far fewer people under 65” (not 65%).
    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

  34. “Lex (09:27:14) :
    The general opinion is that in the next decade very few “dead tree” newspapers shall survive, which means that people will gather their information from the internet. This is going to be a very fascinating time!”
    Could the death nell of traditional news media be a partial reason for such a massive push to get government control of everyones lives? Once the MSM disappears how will governments manage to create orchestrated stories of doom and gloom and of the necessity of controlling everything?

  35. Richard deSousa (09:06:28) :
    I feel sorry for the Europeans… they’re being taxed to death and now they want more taxes heaped on them… of course if they can some how wrangle a deal to have the USA pay for global warming instead of the Europeans, they will approve.

    Maybe we’d regard it as payback for having to buy all those houses for your loan defaulters.

  36. I don’t think much of these polls. Phone a random stranger and they will answer any question without more than 5 seconds thought. People who vote have to care enough about an issue to be registered and actually cast a ballot. That is a completely different set of people, in both Europe and the USA, and they count. These folks who were polled don’t.

  37. The Harris and Pew polls confirm that AGW is more a political issue than a scientific one. However, improving a person’s understanding of the science might be easier than changing the person’s politics. Time and the probabilities of climate should be allies in this effort.

  38. BernardP (08:45:13) : “(in Europe) there generally is more control of the media by the State.”
    Not if Obama has his way. The decimation of unbiased US news outlets has already begun with his assault on Fox News. How is this not evidence of totalitarian intent?

  39. It is possible that Americans pay more attention to weather and climate than Europeans, and so are less likely to believe exaggeration. The Weather Bureau dates back to colonial times, iirc. It’s hard to imagine the weather channel having started in europe – it’s just not such a big deal there.
    Perhaps the numbers in some of the other questions are skewed because the questions ask about change relative to current policies. Many Europeans are already spending much more than the U.S. on climate change, for instance, so asking people there and here if their government should spend more is comparing apples to oranges.
    On the subject of foreign aid, here in the U.S. we still have a strong sense of “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute”. Third world climate extortion is a non-starter here.

  40. Kevin (09:19:56) :
    Heh. The headline makes it sound like the poll question was, “What do you care more about – Climate Change, or Americans?

    You must be English. There is another question in the poll, “Which one, if any, of the following countries do you think is the greatest threat to global stability?”
    Our close friends, the Brits, responded that the U.S. was the second biggest threat following Iran, but a larger threat than N. Korea, China, Iraq and Russia.
    Thanks for the support.

  41. I have a slightly different view than Pielke’s interpretation of this Pew polling data, but I certainly appreciate his tabulation of the results, including changes since 2006.
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/public-opinion-realities.html
    Independents swing national elections, and the Obama administration ought to pay attention. Independents showed greater declines in the belief of human caused global warming since 2006 than either Republicans or Democrats.
    Independents dropped 21% (from 54% to 33%)
    Republicans dropped 13% (31% to 18%)
    Democrats dropped 7% (57% to 50%)
    Only one-third of Independents now believe in human-caused global warming, and that belief declined even for Democrats.

  42. You can reduce consumption of fossil fuels in two ways . First by direct intervention of goverments , ie legislation for smaller cars , insulation for houses, direct rationing of fuel – or secondly push the price up with carbon taxes on electricity and petrol or cap and trade systems. Cap and trade has the same effect as carbon taxes ie energy gets more expensive . More expensive energy makes people use less. The essence of the copenhagen meeting is to impose a cap and trade on western nations. Therefore the above survey shows that many people do not understand the essence of signing at Copenhagen . That is – much higher energy costs.

  43. Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys.

    So there’s your demographic! Grauniad & Times group readers.
    DaveE.

  44. I don’t think it’s sound to base your opinion of how Americans feel about the environment on one poll relating to the a single subject. That (in my opinion) is a bit narrow-minded.
    The fact is that America has some of the strongest and most complex environmental laws of any country in the world from the federal level down to the State and on to the local communities. Take it from me, an Environmental Scientist who spends my time doing environmental permitting for a variety of industries.
    This is definitely a political issue.

  45. Jack Hughes (08:47:36) :
    We are talking about a different mindset here.
    People in Europe are passive and expect their leaders and/or governments to solve problems and tell them what to do.

    I have a nephew that used to work in New York, but following the 911 attack decided to move to Europe to work (his office was in WTC north tower and all his co-workers were killed). He ended up working in Switzerland, and in a letter to me, he noted a totally different mind set in the Swiss than in Americans that was something of a shock to him.
    He told me that, the Swiss tended to assume things were not allowed unless told otherwise, and Americans assumed actions were allowed unless told otherwise. The consequence of that mind set, was that they looked for official confirmation that behaviors were “ok” and tended not to step out of line and find new and different ways of doing things. They were much more comfortable following long established procedure rather than trying to improve an old process.
    In that sort of world view, incessant propaganda is probably more effective than here in America. We tend to be suspicious of any authority that is “trying too hard” to get us to do something, I call it the used car salesman response. The best way to get a lot of people in America to look behind the curtain, or set off alarm bells is if they decide they are getting pushed into taking an action, like the used car salesman that tells them they have to sign right now as he has another customer who wants the car. This is why folks are getting so upset about the rapid fire passage of some recent major legislation like Cap and Trade. That full court press legislative agenda my very well prove to be the straw that broke the camels back.
    If my nephew asked his co-workers why they did something the way they did when they could improve things by doing it a different way, their immediate response was to suspect that that change would violate some regulation. Rather than investigate if it was legal, or take the initiative, they would stick with tried and true methods.
    In America you are more likely to find someone who believes in the old military axiom — “it is easier to get forgiveness than to get permission” and take the risk of doing something new that they believe will get the job done rather than get lost in the bureaucracy trying to get permission to try it.
    General Patton depended on that sort of attitude, he would tell his junior commanders to give orders that demanded an end result, not a method, as they would be surprised at how ingenious they would be to get the job done.
    Larry

  46. tallbloke (09:49:09)
    Very scientific remark. Don’t forget to mention the housing market in Spain, the Baltic republics, the UK and Ireland, the Netherlands. Who is defaulting, you say?

  47. I don’t know if this was a good idea, but I just went to harrispollonline.com and registered to be polled in the future.
    Perhaps we can influence public opinion by expressing opinion. (Foolish but true, I’m afraid.)

  48. Myron Mesecke (09:48:38): “Once the MSM disappears how will governments manage to create orchestrated stories of doom and gloom and of the necessity of controlling everything?”
    The U.S. government is already hedging their bets by creating a program that will require private sector computers and systems connecting to the Internet to be operated by a government certified licensee whom I presume answers to the government’s whim or is out of a job. This is only the first step:
    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/September/New-Bill-Could-Give-Government-Control-of-Internet/

  49. As the modern solar maxima comes to a close, and the snow piles higher, the ice gets thicker, the number of people who believes man causes global warming sinks to 36%. NOTE: The word “believes”, as in religion.
    This is going to be a hard winter for the hoaxers.

  50. When Governments cease to listen to the voice of their people, freedom is at risk.
    Yesterday, the European Union has agreed on a Climate package to be offered at the Copenhagen Climate Meeting.
    The package contains:
    80 to 95% reduction of CO2 Emissions by 2050 based on 1990 levels.
    An unknown financial contribution (at least 15 billion Euro per year) to prevent the Developing World from “developing”.
    So, no mater what the poles state, the economic suicide of the EU has become a fact.
    The other fact that the Copenhagen Treaty will include the establishment of a Totalitarian World Government is kept under the table.
    The draconian measures necessary to enforce the legal aspects of this treaty will result in a suppressive regime which at best can be described as “Communism on Steroids.
    Because the true objective of the UN and it’s collaborators is aimed at the reduction of the world population to 1 billion inhabitants, they have to eliminate the moral and legal conscience of humanity, which an integral part of the “Free World”.
    Otherwise they risk prosecution for genocide.
    As soon as the Free World will cease to exist we will experience a policy that combines intense propaganda with a slow removal of our rights and the introduction of individual carbon credits. After some time this controlled process will collapse after which we will find ourselves back in a “slaughterhouse”.
    We will see severe disruptions in our food chains (because starvation will be the preferred tool of population reduction) and violent confrontations between law enforcement and civilians.
    You can read about the entire scenario at http://green-agenda.com
    A more detailed view about what’s currently happening in the USA can be found here:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/us_sovereignty_and_the_climate.html

  51. Well people see the cold weather stories and they’re like, is AGW really happening or is it just the alarmists?
    Considering that, the oceans are still in heat release mode and El Modoki’s strengthening a bit which Tallbloke himself said was kicked on or caused by this longer period of inactivity by the Sun, the Europeans who don’t read this blog might not know that though and just see warm oceans.

  52. For those that responded in favour of reaching an agreement in Copenhagen, but against paying extra tax to curb emissions, I wonder if they realise the contradiction in their position. Perhaps they believe that for a “postage stamp a day” civilization can painlessly decarbonise.
    They will be in for a rude awakening if they get their wish. As Obama has said, elections have consequences, and so too do binding treaties.

  53. As someone on the North side of age 65, I am curious about the exclusion of those older than age 65 in the poll results. As far as I know, individuals over age 65 still vote, still pay taxes, still consume, and will mostly still be around for quite a few years yet. I can understand why certain groups would want to exclude them based on recent election demographics however.

  54. Despite what the ever fair media would have you believe, Americans aren’t dumb enough to fall for ignorant socialist mitigation strategies.

  55. Just a point about a new person on the block that is a skeptic. That is Steven Levitt. He is young and brilliant and a great thinker. I’m sure you heard that his new book superfreakonomics has stirred up a hornets nest in the “progressive” world after having been a darling. His credentials are: MIT PHD in economics, a full professor at the U of Chicaog after two years, one as assistant, second as Associate with tenure and Full on year three. He received the John Bates Clark award for oustanding economist under 40 and is line to get a Nobel prize at the rate he is going (now 43). He is in line at U of C to be the heir to Milton Friedman.
    In his book he says things like “C02 increases follows warming, the models are simplisitic, warming in the 70’s 80 was partially a result of particulate reduction — quotes approvingly of Myrvold who says AGW is not believable and another scientist who says it is water vapor that is the thing we have to look at and we have very little measurement tools today to do so ” Levitt is attempting to bring rationalisty into the debate.
    Levitt and his co-author are being attached by everyone in the AGW camp. And you can see their fright.

  56. I don’t know why so much faith is put in polls, the respondant base is far too small to be representative of a countries population and weighted towards those with a predisposition to while their evenings away by filling in these forms.
    To have taken part in the poll you would have to be already registered as a member with Harris and have these questionaires emailed to you on a regular basis.
    The random selection of respondants is limited to those already registered with Harris who could be bothered to reply.
    Interesting though that the majority of Americans believe that, when governments meet in Copenhagen, “signing a new treaty . . . on climate change” should be one of the top priorities.
    Hhhmmm I would not validate this personally.

  57. If the US signs up to the new world government, I am sure they will fulfill their duties with enthusiasm.
    Can you see Obama launching cruise missiles at the coal fired power stations of countries that fail to meet their emissions targets?

  58. It helps to have some facts. Anthony the link to “press release” doesn’t work for me.
    However, Monday’s FT contains an article headed: “Public backing for deep CO2 cuts from China”. The article contains two of the questions asked in the Harris/FT poll, both of which are designed to lead to an “agree” answer.
    The first was: “Do you agree that, since China is the biggest carbon emitter, it should cut its emissions the most.” Between 60% and 80% of respondents US, UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy agreed!
    Now, if the question had pointed out that China has vastly lower carbon emissions per capita than the developed world and was moreover the workshop of the world, I suggest the answer would have been totally different. The reported answer certainly does not justify the headline.
    This is extremely disappointing from a heavy newspaper with a reputation to protect.
    Regards
    S

  59. If the US signs up to the new world government, I am sure they will fulfill their duties with enthusiasm.
    Can you just see Obama destroying those power stations of countries that fail to meet their emissions targets?

  60. Well, stupidity cuts both ways. Too bad we have a mal-educated populace but a few years of especially cold weather should do the trick even if it is “only weather.”

  61. It is true that European newspapers are just a collection of stupidities whenever it concerns the climate. And what is worse: These articles are usually written by just one person, a journalist with the initials AP. He must be the dumbest European of them all.

  62. I have been a long time lurker on this site and would like to applaud it and all its good works.
    One aspect of the disparity between the US percentages and the European percentages is not mentioned here. Although the old media and BBC etc are almost all pro-AGW, what is not often realised is that the official government brainwashing starts in primary school. There has been at least a decade of this, possibly more. It starts early, it is part of the ‘science’ curricula, you would be marked down for an opposing position in an essay, and critical thinking has been more-or-less expunged. ‘Climatology’ in Geography is more about pictures of polar bears rather than saturated or dry adiabatic lapse rates, relative humidity or dew-points. I know my kids got marked down, but they are out of the school system now and in a freer environment in University science departments. I would hate to bring up young children in the ‘young communist’ or ‘hitler youth’ style of naked propaganda of today’s school system. Teachers are equally brainwashed and are drawn from a segment of population usually referred to as ‘Guardian Readers’.
    I am sure you are all now depressingly familiar with the recent government sponsored advert on TV which was pure propaganda.
    Keep up the good work.

  63. Many Americans still have an independent spirit. Many Europeans are caught up in group think, where not at least implicitly endorsing the perceived majority opinion is frowned upon. This same attitude is prevalent in American schools and mass media as well.
    Me, I’m from Missouri, so you have to “show me.”

  64. I bet if you polled all those earning less that any given salary, they will all ‘feel’ they should have more money. I know I do.
    So, when a picture is painted that poor innocent polar bears are dying, glaciers are melting (that’s a bad thing, right?), and sea levels are going to flood our coast, I’m sure most people will ‘feel’ those are not good things, and ‘feel’ that something should be done about it.
    Such people are ripe prey: invariably, such people are told that their feelings are natural, understandable and not their fault.
    I had an idea for a ‘reality’ show:
    A petition is circulated asking what people would do to possibly save a polar bear. The sacrifice would be to have their house buldozed, lose their job and all their savings (and have their retirement savings put into a government bond. heh.). All hypothetical, of course. The mark signs up to ‘potentially save’ the polar bear.
    Then, they come home, just in time to see the buldozers lined up on their front door. It’s explained that this polar bear (Picture of said polar bear given to home owner) will be saved by their generous sacrifice.
    Lawyers are on hand to allow them to conveniently sign over their bank accounts to the Polar bear in question (They named him Simon, by the way. He’s very grateful). Their reduction in dangerous poison will greatly help Simon and his kin, while the funds will be used to offset their past indiscretions. The ‘mark’ can now live their life guilt free.
    Of course, the lawyers can adjust the contract to have their neighbors house buldozed instead; if they just sign here…and here. The neighbor (in on this setup) comes home to see their home being flattened; everyone points to the ‘mark’ as the cause.
    I wonder how they ‘feel’ about global warming now. Since ‘feeling’ is the only thing that counts.

  65. John Galt (11:55:12)
    So, in such a spirit, the common sense people of the whole world sincerely hope to watch you americans solve this crazy problem, ” a la Far West” best style.
    Good luck!

  66. They conducted an online poll. Extremists swamped the poll skewing the results which do not reflect true public opinion.

  67. Adam from Kansas (11:10:07) :
    “Well people see the cold weather stories and they’re like, is AGW really happening or is it just the alarmists?
    Considering that, the oceans are still in heat release mode and El Modoki’s strengthening a bit which Tallbloke himself said was kicked on or caused by this longer period of inactivity by the Sun, the Europeans who don’t read this blog might not know that though and just see warm oceans”.
    You are wrong Adam,
    I am sure Anthony can provide you with detailed figures but I think that 40 maybe even 50% of the visitors here are situated outside the USA.

  68. I wonder how many of those people who, ‘ want a new climate change treaty …signed in Copenhagen ‘have the least idea what it actually says. More a socialist manifesto than a climate change policy. Have a look at pages 62 and 122.

  69. Frankly I could care less about the Europeans. Its my country I am worried about. These loons elected Gordon Brown, Adolf Hitler, and a host of other less than savory characters. The world is not a democracy. The Rush solution comes to mind although I never listen to the guy.

  70. Us Brits are bombarded with AGW stories left, right and centre in the media. We are badgered in the workplace by carbon-control posters. Our children are instructed to live in fear of impending catastrophes, and tested and tested again to check whether they are meeting educational standards which the boss of our main supermarket chain says is producing school leavers who are incapable of working in a store without considerable further training. We are told daily that eating meat shortens your lifespan, through cancer or debilitating diseases.
    We are flooded with conflicting, unsupported, circumstantial medical and social advice that leaves everyone confused and paralysed in case they do the wrong thing, which is in the UK, almost certainly punishable by one of the new laws. Our populace seems to have no connection with those in government, who are creating and enforcing laws that are so ludicrously broad-brush and draconian even police officers fall foul of them, whilst refusing to admit it and carrying on as before when they are caught red handed themselves.
    I’m surprised the score is as low as 60%.
    We have had a reasonably pleasant October so far, and it doesn’t look like there is a cold snap on the way yet. I’m betting that it will be the warmest on record. Even if it isn’t.

  71. g broadley (10:26:10) :
    You can reduce consumption of fossil fuels in two ways . First by direct intervention of goverments , ie legislation for smaller cars , insulation for houses, direct rationing of fuel – or secondly push the price up with carbon taxes on electricity and petrol or cap and trade systems.
    If evidence shows (as it does) that CO2 is a non-issue, then the real concern is the expense of foreign fossil fuel. Lowering consumption is a fourfold goal:
    1) Reduce foreign imports and cost thereof
    2) Increase domestic energy production including alternatives
    3) Greatly improve national security
    4) Benefit from electrification and alcohol, cleaner air, lower cost, etc.
    A year from now GM’s Extended Range Electric Vehicle, the VOLT starts selling. It costs owners an average of 80 cents for 40 miles range. Sure beats foreign oil.

  72. A very large number of people here in England are actually quite frightened to express any form of opinion which runs, or may run, counter to our Socialist Government’s line as bruited in the MSM. Many “thought crimes” are now punishable offences in this country; certain opinions which can be freely held and expressed in the USA can land you in jail in England.
    The entire citizenry has been banned from holding any form of firearm other than shotguns and, in very rare cases, approved calibre rifles; no handguns of any sort may be legally held. (Oh, that law doesn’t apply to our growing number of criminals, of course.)
    Our serving politicians of all parties have been shown to be corrupt and venal in the extreme insofar as the financial abuse of their positions is concerned but that does not hinder them in the slightest from driving this country deeper and deeper into un-repayable debt.
    I do not wonder for one second as to why the results of this poll reflected in the main the Government’s stated policies. The poll respondents probably glanced over their shoulders before giving the “right and politically acceptable” reply.
    Yes, it really IS now that bad here in England!

  73. Lex (10:36:34) :
    tallbloke (09:49:09)
    Very scientific remark. Don’t forget to mention the housing market in Spain, the Baltic republics, the UK and Ireland, the Netherlands. Who is defaulting, you say?
    There is enough blame to go around. Don’t let them divide us.
    If you think this collapse was not deliberate, you would be mistaken.

  74. @ Adolfo Giurfa (12:09:59) :
    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the USA to solve this or any other problem.
    Most people in this country just go through their lives blindly and don’t take the time to learn what is happening. Their focus in life is mass consumption and physical pleasure. Many Americans now demand cradle-to-grave care from the government and expect their wants and needs to be satisfied by someone else’s labor.
    Our children no longer learn about American government or American history. American exceptionalism is no longer taught to students. Instead of learning the greatness of this nation’s founders, we now teach how Jefferson, Adams, Washington, et. al., were rich, white slave-owning men who made their fortune exploiting the common man. Academic cheating is rampant because students are indoctrinated not in hard work but in how every prominent American only got ahead through cheating.
    There is still hope in America, but things will get worse before they get better.

  75. Forgot to mention.
    I’m waiting on the re-education squad as I’ve not hidden my identity nor gone through proxy servers. 😉
    DaveE.

  76. OceanTwo (12:00:05)
    You forgot one thing in your reality show scenario.
    The “expenses” for handling all the details for the polar bear will exceed 90% of the take. So the actual amount for the polar bear will be less than 10% of the gross.

  77. Consensus ! The majority are believers. It must be true !
    However 50% of the population is below average intelligence, so consensus should not be surprising. (I’ve found that a surprising number of people can’t accept this dinner party factoid. For the pedants: median and mean are virtually the same for intelligence.)

  78. I find that the mixing of key words and the pharasing of questions in this poll are quite misleading.
    For instance the question of priority at Copenhagen is tied to there being a treaty meeting rather than the priority of having a treaty. Well duh, if we are paying for all these bureaucrats to go there, we should expect results. Even (or is that especially) if that means signing a meaningless piece of paper.
    Another way this poll misleads is the mixed use of the terms pollution/environment and greenhouse gas. The responses I would give related to pollution (bad, wicked, etc.) are quite different than what I would answer regarding greenhouse gasses (minor proble if one at all).
    I doubt the pollers are NOT aware of what they are doing. I may be seeing mist, but I think I can see that the different reponses in some areas of the poll are indicating less support for greenhouse gas as a problem than pollution.

  79. This may be because they believe that the Americans are the source of the problem and the greatest obstacle to its solution. If they thought they were at fault, they would care less.

  80. Well bully for the treaty-pushers, then, but just because a lot of people “think” so doesn’t mean they’re right!
    Furthermore, many (in the U.S.) think that respecting liberty means that our representatives must do what the majority want them to. Not so! If government intervention cannot be done without violating the Constitution, it is up to the masses to realize this and for government to say no to the masses when the masses fail to realize this, even if that would make them unpopular.
    In this case, compensation must be offered (and accepted as adequate) by all who will have their liberties reduced by this kind of legislation. But there is no way government can pay that bill. Raising taxes would only be more unjust to more people, and thus require more compensation yet.
    i.e., There is no way that this kind of legislation will ever be legal!

  81. Ron de Haan, you posted a link about a recent solar flare.
    The site had a $5 monthly subscription you could purchase for updates on space weather. Does anyone know where that is? My son wants to join.

  82. Most folks are preoccupied with other things and are not interested enough to investigate for themselves what CO2 reductions really mean to the future cost and reliablity of energy.
    Given the current state of the art in energy production and barring a major technical breakthrough, the notion that substantial reductions in CO2 will require only modest cost increases is wishful thinking at its best and intentional disinformation at its worst.
    No matter the longitude of one’s residence, if they knew the truth about co2 reductions, they would not support the treaty.

  83. I was 16 years old. I was on top of a Mesa in central Sweden, for 3 days of soaring plane work. (Run by the Swedish Air Force). I was an American Civil Air Patrol Cadet.
    We had fellows from Switzerland, England, Scotland and Canada. I found a broken piano in the corner of the dining hall. I opened it up and found the “pull back stirups” were mostly gone. I asked the dining hall director if she would mind if I would fix it. She said NO, go ahead. I went and got a needle nose pliers, some fine signal wire (always carry with me!) and came back to fix the piano.
    Three of the Brits showed up while I was doing it. They began to harangue me about my lack of experience, my not knowing what I was doing, and that it would be impossible for me to “fix” the “delicate instrument”.
    Then one of the Swedish Viggan fighter pilots, doing some “holiday soaring” came by. He said, “Oh, I’ve ordered the stirrupts, and I was going to fix it myself. But let’s see what you have..” He worked with me for about 5 minutes, we tweeked things, and then he sat down and started playing “stride jazz piano”, like from New Orleans..perfect. “Well, this works quite well with your little fine wires as pull backs!”
    I watched the BRITS slink away…. my lesson, some 30 plus years ago, about the rigidity and lack of initiative of the “European” personalities.
    (By the way, USA Civil Air Patrol cadets were 14 to 18 years old. The other nation’s air cadets were all “College Aged” , more of an ROTC..)

  84. D. King (13:03:29) :
    Lex (10:36:34) :
    tallbloke (09:49:09)
    Very scientific remark. Don’t forget to mention the housing market in Spain, the Baltic republics, the UK and Ireland, the Netherlands. Who is defaulting, you say?
    There is enough blame to go around. Don’t let them divide us.
    If you think this collapse was not deliberate, you would be mistaken.

    My tongue was planted firmly in cheek, as I hope Richard’s was too. 😉

  85. Adam from Kansas (11:10:07) :
    Well people see the cold weather stories and they’re like, is AGW really happening or is it just the alarmists?
    Considering that, the oceans are still in heat release mode and El Modoki’s strengthening a bit which Tallbloke himself said was kicked on or caused by this longer period of inactivity by the Sun, the Europeans who don’t read this blog might not know that though and just see warm oceans.

    Well, the folks round the edges of europe might. It seems to be getting mighty cool in the middle of the continental masses right now. I’ll be very interested to see what happens to air temps compared to SST’s over the next two months. I suspect that even if SST’s stay high, we’ll see air temps dropping off or at least not zipping up in response to SST peaks like they were in July.

  86. “This is the best you can come up with?” Leif
    No, not at all. But I told you that I gave my final word on the subject. You can’t let it drop, it seems. So I wondered about your ankle.

  87. Back2Bat (16:36:49) :
    So I wondered about your ankle.
    why would you worry about my ankle? Below that is the foot that crushed you. But it is good that you will not rear this subject again. This was my goal in the first place.

  88. So the special relationship still exists. From the pole, it seems that the Brits and the Americans have a greater convergence of opinion on the subject of global warming than with other European countries. Long live the special relationship and common sense. Perhaps WUWT is a unifying influence.

  89. We are an emotional species. Therefore in many cases, belief trumps data. Philosophy trumps data, religion trumps data, questionable IQ trumps data, hurt feelings trumps data. Just about anything trumps data. Massaged data trumps data. Statistics trumps data. Advertisement trumps data. I could go on but I think I am done.

  90. “This was my goal in the first place.” Leif
    Well, my point about your conceit stands proven. But I will continue to spread the word just not here.
    As to whether you crushed me, you have not. You did not refute my last word but you seem to have misunderstood it. Go back and read it again, I suggest. I’ll keep my word.

  91. “Therefore in many cases, belief trumps data. Philosophy trumps data, religion trumps data, questionable IQ trumps data, hurt feelings trumps data. Just about anything trumps data. Massaged data trumps data.” Pam
    I’m looking forward to cold hard reality in the form of cold hard weather trumping it all. Then I am looking forward to red faces and not just from the cold.
    Science will take a beating but it has grown arrogant and tyrannical. Perhaps it will police itself better in the future and not mix soft science with hard.

  92. “Tim Clark (09:12:40) :
    In Europe, between 60% (in Britain) and 89% (in Italy) believe that, when governments meet in Copenhagen, “signing a new treaty . . . on climate change” should be one of the top priorities. In the United States, a lower 53% feel this way.”
    I’d hazard a guess the reason why there is 89% support in italy is that there are more people drawing some form of state funded benefit than there are working and contributing to the tax base. An alternate income is required.

  93. This just in: A higher % of Americans than any other first world country don’t believe in the Theory of Evolution. They must know something that the scientists don’t….

  94. ginckgo (19:06:01) :
    This just in: A higher % of Americans than any other first world country don’t believe in the Theory of Evolution. They must know something that the scientists don’t….
    Just shows why America will not remain a first world country much longer, as her science illiteracy deepens.

  95. “Just shows why America will not remain a first world country much longer, as her science illiteracy deepens.” Leif
    America could easily become tops in the world if it simple abolished the government school system. You see Leif, truth prevails on a level playing field;
    it does not need help from tyrants.

  96. Back2Bat (18:05:44) :
    “Therefore in many cases, belief trumps data. Philosophy trumps data, religion trumps data, questionable IQ trumps data, hurt feelings trumps data. Just about anything trumps data. Massaged data trumps data.” Pam

    I’m looking forward to cold hard reality in the form of cold hard weather trumping it all. Then I am looking forward to red faces and not just from the cold.
    Science will take a beating but it has grown arrogant and tyrannical. Perhaps it will police itself better in the future and not mix soft science with hard.
    Well said, B2B.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  97. Back2Bat (17:54:41) :
    But I will continue to spread the word just not here.

    Leif Svalgaard (19:51:02) :
    That’s all that is needed. Good riddance.

    You are shooting yourself in the foot, Leif.
    You want THIS guy….on YOUR side.
    Stop the emotive outbursts. I
    t really is unbecoming of Science and the Scientific Method.
    It REALLY is….
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  98. Leif Svalgaard (19:53:19) :
    ginckgo (19:06:01) :
    This just in: A higher % of Americans than any other first world country don’t believe in the Theory of Evolution. They must know something that the scientists don’t….
    Just shows why America will not remain a first world country much longer, as her science illiteracy deepens.
    Your “science illiteracy” argument gets really REALLY old.
    YOU ARE BROAD-BRUSHING (yes I am in caps) just like the “science illiterate” evolution-believers.
    Leif…do you not see your error here….or are you immune to it?
    Stop the broad-brush generalizations.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  99. Back2bat and others that say the cold is coming. Me thinks two sides of the mouth are talking. The AGW’s are accused of not being able to predict a chaotic system. But you can. Okay. I’ll bite. Are you saying that this winter will be bitterly cold? Where? And what weather/oceanic/atmospheric system do you think has substantially changed for this plunge to happen? You talk as if you are expected multiple degrees below average. Or are you saying that it will, someday in the future, be bitterly cold? If that is the case, what would be the cause then? I ask because you seem quite sure.

  100. What study are you using to base your statement on regarding public schools? Are you saying they are not producing literate youth? In which area? Are private schools doing better when compared directly with public schools in each of these areas? Are public Universities also part of the problem in your mind? Show me the data.

  101. savethesharks (20:33:55) :
    You want THIS guy….on YOUR side.
    If you mean THAT guy, absolutely not !
    Your “science illiteracy” argument gets really REALLY old.
    Perhaps, but steadily confirmed.

  102. Pamela Gray (20:44:42) Grrrrr….what are you saying Pamela….or not saying?
    And what weather/oceanic/atmospheric system do you think has substantially changed for this plunge to happen?
    OK Pamela….what is your forecast?? Mild to warm PAC NW and stormy southern US….pretty normal for a fading moderate El Nino.
    Shouldn’t you add the word “solar”? LOL
    Oh….right….the entity that gives the world most of its heat and light….has no say in this equation.
    Oh….riiiiiiiight.
    I get it now. Thanks.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  103. While this study does not include science, it demonstrates that conservative private schools may need to wake up and smell the coffee. When apples are compared with apples, the results are mixed. Except for those conservative school. Maybe someone should suggest that these conservative private schools invite some public school teachers in to get these classroom teachers up to snuff.
    http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard//pubs/studies/2006461.asp

  104. Pam,
    I can’t predict the future since I don’t own it. I hope it gets cold enough for long enough to reset a lot of nonsense. Frankly, I am very tired of a lot of pseudo-science (and pseudo-economics) ruining my world.
    I’d like to predict the future
    but surely if I do,
    the One who owns the future
    might pull a switcheroo.

    I ask because you seem quite sure. Pam
    It is a very strong hope since I know it would humble many and allow the world to go on a little longer. I don’t want it to end on my watch without my trying.

  105. If you mean THAT guy, absolutely not !
    Why? What is he a threat to you? Seems like a pretty smart chap there?
    What are your reasons…and, more importantly, why are you so threatened by him.??
    What harm has he caused you?
    His basic concern is the TRUTH….just like you.
    Why….and how….is that a threat to you??
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  106. I didn’t mean to be nasty. I questioned your assumptions because they seemed to be quite strongly worded. Was it just talk or do you have reliable and verifiable information to back this cold future (tomorrow? next year? next century?) up? I keep an eye on the trade winds. Right now they are not very strong in either direction. When the Easterlies become strong enough to peel back a warm layer of equatorial ocean water, I will predict NH cold dry weather systems mixed with cold wet weather systems along the US portion of the jet stream. Right now we seem to be experiencing warmer dry weather systems mixed with warmer wet weather systems that naturally turn to snow in higher elevations. I just don’t see our current parameters leading to bitter cold in the next month.
    Regarding the Sun, the oceans are much better at creating clouds than the Sun is. These clouds may be slightly enhanced due to solar influences, but the large swings due to oceanic influences likely bury solar produced cloud enhancements or decreases.

  107. Pamela Gray (20:52:34) :
    The public school spanking boy gets really really old too. Back it up. Debate it
    .
    Huh? Wha??
    Are you in favor of corporal punishement….LOL?
    Debate what??
    What is the question?
    The question Pamela….is regarding this continuous looking down the nose of acedemia to the “science illiterate.”
    Yeah yeah the illiterates are out there.
    But it is not possible to paint with such a broad brush…yet still hold onto the hallowed principles of the SM.
    Inductive…not deductive.
    Why is that concept so hard to understand??
    CHRIS
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  108. savethesharks (21:30:48) :
    What harm has he caused you?
    claims to have bitten my ankle, for one.
    The guy is not a threat to me; his ideas are a threat to mankind [including you]. Not because they are any good, but because they are false. Same kind of threat that Lysenko was.
    His basic concern is the TRUTH….just like you.
    No. By his own admission he does not seek truth, but deduces his ideas from logic, which alwasy are no better than the premises.
    Why….and how….is that a threat to you??
    Any pseudo-science is a threat to society if it has enough misguided followers.

  109. “While this study does not include science, it demonstrates that conservative private schools may need to wake up and smell the coffee.” Pam
    Cool. I am not a conservative; I am a libertarian. Still, let the parents decide. That way, Leif’s kids can work for mine and the conservative kids can work for his and the Muslim kids can work for the conservatives’ kids.
    “There’s a place for us,
    somewhere a place for us.
    Peace and quite
    and open air
    wait for us
    somewhere.”
    from the West Side Story

  110. savethesharks (21:30:48) :
    Why….and how….is that a threat to you??
    Any pseudo-science is a threat to society if it has enough misguided followers.
    Let me elaborate on this: a correct theory of the fact of evolution is as crucial to biology as a correct theory of the fact of gravitation is to astronomy. Since the 21st century probably will be the ‘century of biology’ any nation [like the US] that does not have a broad-based understanding of correct evolution will be left behind in the race for exploitation of this new frontier of science. We would be 2nd or 3rd rate, and THAT is why pseudo-science is a threat.
    Reply: What can I do to get you two to stop this without clamping down? Leif, evolution is a prohibited subject of discussion on this site, much for the reasons apparent here. ~ ctm

  111. Back2Bat (21:48:45) :
    Still, let the parents decide.
    No, this is wrong. As wrong as when the parents decide not to let their children have a blood-transfusion for religious reasons. Children have [or should have] the right to correct education irrespective of how misguided their parents are.

  112. “Not because they are any good, but because they are false.” Leif
    Notice that Lysenko’s ideas prospered under Stalin, a tyrant. Tyranny is exactly what is needed for bad ideas to prosper.
    Keep it up Leif and more than your ankle will be bleeding.

    REPLY:
    OK that’s it, take a 24 hour timeout. No more from you until then. – Anthony

  113. OK, Tony. Sorry. I did not threaten Leif with physical harm just metaphorical harm.
    REPLY: Thank you for that note, even so the debate is becoming circular. So a time out will bring fresh perspective and perhaps less vitriol. – Anthony

  114. Leif Svalgaard (22:07:38) :
    Reply: What can I do to get you two to stop this without clamping down? Leif, evolution is a prohibited subject of discussion on this site, much for the reasons apparent here.
    The subject of discussion is the future of biological and the threat to society of a wrong understanding of its foundations. It seems that this is of equal importance as the threat to society of a wrong understanding of climate change. In both cases, pseudo-science has taken hold among the unwashed masses and is being exploited by politicians and other tricksters. This is about fundamentals. Having correct fundamental science be taboo is wrong. For that one could as well go to RealClimate or Taniino. All of this is premised on facts and science be discussed and not faith and beliefs. Nobody is belittling anybody’s faith or any persons base on their faith or lack thereof. The discussion is about when faith takes over and is peddled as science with economic, political, and intellectual and freedom issues at stake.

  115. Back2bat, you said, “The [US] could easily become tops in the world if it [simply] abolished the government school system.” This seems quite a leap to me given what the data is saying. Are you “wishing” it were so, like hoping it will get cold, or do you have another data source that says something different than anything I have seen about the comparison between public and private schools? Is it really that easy of a solution? If the data suggests the answer is probably no, as it seems to be suggesting, do you still want to try what appears to be an unwise hunt for Shangri la? It seems to me your premise about public schools causing our current standing in the world is as questionable as CO2 causing global warming. However, it is your leap. If you can make such a leap of faith, do you see that it is then fair to allow AGW’s to make their leap of faith? Or is this do as I say, not as I do?
    What is the difference between global warming religion and your seemingly religous stance? Both certainly require faith. Aren’t they both somewhat based on wishing and fantasy, even if sincere?

  116. savethesharks (21:30:48) :
    What harm has he caused you?
    claims to have bitten my ankle, for one.
    The guy is not a threat to me; his ideas are a threat to mankind [including you]. Not because they are any good, but because they are false. Same kind of threat that Lysenko was.
    No. Lysenko is James Hansen, not B2B.
    That’s all I am saying Leif. Please choose your battles. We are on YOUR side.
    It is not all or nothing (that is a logical fallacy and you know that).
    Meanwhile….back to topic;
    I think, in general, Euros are more advanced in their thinking, but ah there lies the big rub.
    It is terrible how all of these terms get welded together without much difference:
    Climate Change Global Warming
    (add anthropogenic)
    Of course Euros are more concerned about the topic….they are more open-minded.
    Yet therein lies the double rub.
    Openmindedness is not the final measure.
    When you have a bad idea (AGW) that is propagated by the scientific community and is embraced by “open-minded” people….nothing much is gained.
    So….no big deal that our more forward-thinking Euro friends are more concerned about AGW.
    If they are wrong at the starting gate, then what does it matter?
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  117. Pamela Gray “I just don’t see our current parameters leading to bitter cold in the next month.”
    Yeah but maybe the next month thereafter. We shall see. 🙂

  118. Back2Bat (22:14:54) :
    Notice that Lysenko’s ideas prospered under Stalin, a tyrant. Tyranny is exactly what is needed for bad ideas to prosper.
    And which tyrant is reigning over AGW now?. Bad ideas proper because of ignorance, not tyranny. Tyrants, even the lesser variants we call politicians, are keen to profit from a illiterate, ignorant, and misguided populace. This is why pseudo-science must be fought: to make it more difficult for tyranny to take hold, to profit, and to prosper.

  119. Back2Bat (22:21:29) :
    OK, Tony. Sorry. I did not threaten Leif with physical harm just metaphorical harm.
    Even metaphorical harm is unbecoming a gentleman.
    OK so why are you threatened by that, Leif??
    No big deal. You insult people all the time on this blog and others.
    I take it with a grain of salt, because I understand and appreciate yourbigger than life intellect and perspective.
    Stop making enemies of very smart individuals who, in the real world, would be your friends.
    Your Lysenko words…etcetera…..are emotive…(borderline ad homs) and unnecessary.
    Save that for Dr. Evil. (Hansen)
    Take time to listen to the TONE of what the person is saying.
    Its not hard. Most of us have the truth as our quest.
    That is one of the disadvantages of blogs is that there is no face to face.
    I deeply respect you and your contributions to modern science. Show some respect the other direction.
    Thank you.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  120. savethesharks (22:34:51) :
    Please choose your battles.
    This battle was chosen carefully.
    We are on YOUR side.
    Much as Stalin was on OUR side too, for a while. There are people one does not WANT on one’s side.
    It is not all or nothing
    It is, at times. One can estimate how sound a foundation and grounding in the scientific method a person has by looking at how he/she deals with topics. If, for example, a person claims in seriousness that the world was created last Tuesday or even 6000 years ago, that person’s grasp of science is so tenuous that his/hers scientific judgment is too impaired too be taken seriously. This is an all or nothing issue.

  121. HAHA….there you go again with your little 6000 year old thingy.
    What’s next? Our beloved unicorns?
    Anyways….this battle is not going to be won on line.
    How about I make it more simple:
    Leif. Your scientific contributions to humanity are invaluable. Thank you.
    You hyperbole in some of these remarks are not necessary, and wrong.
    Excused.
    We love ya. And with that….a good nite…it is LATE on the east coast.
    CHRIS
    Norfolk, VA, USA, Earth, Solar System, G-Cloud / LIC Cloud, Milky Way Galaxy….

  122. savethesharks (23:00:25) :
    You hyperbole in some of these remarks are not necessary, and wrong.
    As a scientist I’m a stickler for details, so when you wake up, show me a single wrong hyperbole of mine. I think you cannot.
    Stop making enemies of very smart individuals
    If people become enemies because of exchange of ideas or criticism, they do not qualify as ‘very smart’ in my book. What we [at least I] are discussing are ideas, not persons or their personal failings, with the exception of their failing of comprehension as evidenced by their postings. Those failings are fair game.

  123. “Not many people under 65 in any of the six countries say they would be willing to pay more taxes to cut greenhouse gas emissions”
    Wait until they find out how much they’re about to be fleeced, that might change their minds. But will it be too late then?

  124. If there’s so many people believe in AGW then they should be able to cut back more than enough to make up for the ‘deniers’. Then no treaties would be needed.

  125. What ever happened to democracy? With an issue as important as this to the world, those countries that have to pay the freight should have to lay out all the costs etc. and have a plebiscite on the issue.
    I hate it when politicians who are elected to represent us, decide on their own that they know better!

  126. Leif Svalgaard (22:22:01)
    The subject of discussion is the future of biological and the threat to society of a wrong understanding of its foundations. It seems that this is of equal importance as the threat to society of a wrong understanding of climate change. In both cases, pseudo-science has taken hold among the unwashed masses and is being exploited by politicians and other tricksters. This is about fundamentals. Having correct fundamental science be taboo is wrong.
    But if the published biological “science” and assumptions that are published in Journals such as “Nature” and “Science” are qualitatively incorrect (and violate the first and second laws) and when questioned are updated (without citation) and still incorrect and are matters of great debate in biophysics.eg Kleiber’s law
    Ontogenetic growth: models and theory
    Anastassia M. Makarieva a, Victor G. Gorshkov a and Bai-Lian Li Corresponding Author Contact Information
    Abstract
    : We re-analyze the assumptions underlying two recently proposed ontogenetic growth models [Nature 413 (2001) 628; Nature 417 (2002) 70] to find that the basic relations in which these models are grounded contradict the law of energy conservation. We demonstrate the failure of these models to predict and explain several important lines of empirical evidence, including (a) the organismal energy budget during embryonic development; (b) the human growth curve; (c) patterns of metabolic rate change during transition from embryonic to post-embryonic stages; and (d) differences between parameters of embryonic growth in different taxa. We show how a theoretical approach based on well-established ecological regularities explains the observations where the formal models fail. Within a broader context, we also discuss major principles of ontogenetic growth modeling studies in ecology, emphasizing the necessity of ecological theory to be based on assumptions that are testable and to be formulated in terms of variables and parameters that are measurable.
    Anastassia writes at HESS 2008 (reminiscent of Nalimov)
    The validity of the fundamental laws of nature and of good theories based on them
    has been tested on such a great amount of empirical data that it is a good theory that can tell you whether the empirical data are of good or bad quality rather than the data tell you something about the theory. For this reason, good theories can be used for making predictions, like the existence of many elementary particles was predicted in theoretical physics prior to their actual discovery. How justified is the use of models for making predictions?
    During model development the priority is given to reaching a satisfactory agreement
    between the data and the mathematical structure of the model. On the basis of theavailable sets of data points taken from the general ensemble of all empirical evidence the modelers determine linear and non-linear correlations between the chosen measurable variables, including their temporal changes. The resulting time dependence of model variables allows one to make a forecast for the future. Such a forecast, however, is nothing but a limited extrapolation of what has been observed in the past. With changing the empirical datasets the model structure and forecasts change. With inclusion of ever growing amounts of observations the models become more and more complex, while their agreement with the available observations naturally improve. Thus, an ideal model ultimately comes as an exact and convenient, i.e. mathematically formalized, representation of all the available data. However, to the degree the model is a model and not a theory, it lacks the predictive power. Because of the obvious fact that it cannot be expected that the calibrations made on the basis of the knowndata will remain valid in the domain of predicted (i.e. still unknown) data. This is a conceptual, fundamental problem with the modeling approach. The universal laws of nature predict things
    Based on our own scientific expertise, we can illustrate the above points with specific
    examples of models that were judged to be most successful based on their agreementwith the data and claimed derivability from a “universal” theory, yet shown to confront the fundamental laws of nature. As one can see, the problem transcends across the natural science as a whole. The biological model of organismal growth (West et al., 2001) misinterpreted the energy conservation equation and replaced it with the one conflicting with the energy conservation law. Despite that, the model showed perfect agreement with the data. After the error was identified (Makarieva et al., 2004) it took the model’s authors four years to explicitly admit it (Moses et al., 2008) and re-formulate the model. The re-formulated model re-calibrated using the same data as the original
    (wrong) one showed equally good agreement with the data and got equally well published (Hou et al., 2008). Thus, irrespective of conflicting with the energy conservation law or not, the model agreed with the data, was widely cited and raised little concern in the reading audience

    But as Alven Toffler suggested the illiterate of the future will not be the ability to read and write,but the inability to learn.
    Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., and Li B.-L.: Ontogenetic growth: Models and
    theory, Ecological Modelling, 176, 15-26, 2004.
    West, G. B., Brown, J. H., and Enquist, B. J.: A general model for ontogenetic growth,
    Nature, 413, 628-631, 2001.

  127. A tad late getting to this one.
    Am I reading this right? A poll of 6,500 people across Europe & USA, is undertaken to draw certain conclusions about climate change & how it will affect those countries & the people in them. Let’s see now. 6,500 people, in round figures, representing around 650 million people, works out at around 1/100,000th of the population of those countires sampled to draw conclusions from. Seems reasonable. (Sarc). What are the odds of getting a random sampling, against those of getting a group of AGWwers of varying degrees of belief, considering the liklihood of those under 25 or even 30 would be pro AGW due to their education, backgrounds, environment, (no pun intended) political beliefs, government’s political alignment, & propaganda machine namely the EU? With my humble engineer’s brain I suggest that this survey is meaningless dribble!

  128. “In Europe, between 60% (in Britain) and 89% (in Italy) believe that, when governments meet in Copenhagen, “signing a new treaty . . . on climate change” should be one of the top priorities. In the United States, a lower 53% feel this way.”
    [snip]
    According to a recent YouGov survey the top priorities of people in the UK are: Immigration; the EU; the recession; crime; political corruption. Despite Labour’s and the MSM’s efforts to the contrary, the importance of AGW is a long way down the list.

  129. Back2Bat (11:35:46) :
    Too bad we have a mal-educated populace
    Leif Svalgaard (14:11:40) :
    It shows in the science illiteracy so vividly demonstrated on even this blog.
    For some reason I find this exchange amusing. Perhaps using the broad brush of generalizations we could come up with the special law of relative stupidity.
    This is the state where two participants collide and produce absolutely nothing.

  130. maksimovich (23:53:53) :
    But as Alven Toffler suggested the illiterate of the future will not be the ability to read and write,but the inability to learn.
    The future is already here.

  131. MartinGAtkins (05:10:20) :
    This is the state where two participants collide and produce absolutely nothing.
    Well, if one brings nothing to the table, not much will be produced… Except, perhaps, as you note, some free entertainment.

  132. MartinGAtkins 05:10:20:
    “….I find this exchange amusing….”
    I don’t. Especially I find the protagonists ignoring ctm’s and AW’s entreaties to give it a rest pretty insufferable.

  133. I don’t think it is the inability to learn that is at issue. It is the unwillingness to learn and accept hypotheses contrary to one’s emotional beliefs. The worst of it is when such folks cling to ideas that require faith in the place of hard data. Even if no other theory exists that can explain what is observed, clinging to one’s pet theory by relying on faith that it is correct, harkens back to the goddess in the cave era. Taken together, if one defines “smart” by the ability to expand knowledge into areas that violate once held beliefs, and accept them anyway, than I adhere to the statement that some posters here are not very smart.
    Humans have come far in their scientific knowledge not because we cling to understanding that requires faith that it is true, but because people have dared say it is highly unbelievable and that there must be another answer. But is it safe to take such a position? People have lost their lives by expressing such views and acting on them. Even now? Even now in this day and age. Including children murdered or maimed by their own parents who disallow such behavior.

  134. The fact that we do have so many people in America that don’t believe in evolution — as if science depends upon belief — just shows us how public education has failed in this country.
    One problem is the atheists who insist evolution proves there is no God. Science is agnostic. People who attempt to use science to disprove religion are no different than those who insist science must be consistent with their religious beliefs or it is rejected.

  135. Pamela Gray (06:49:29) :
    : I don’t think it is the inability to learn that is at issue. It is the unwillingness to learn and accept hypotheses contrary to one’s emotional beliefs. The worst of it is when such folks cling to ideas that require faith in the place of hard data. Even if no other theory exists that can explain what is observed, clinging to one’s pet theory by relying on faith that it is correct
    But if the continuation of incorrect assumptions still allows one to publish in say ”science” is it not proper process to question the science (ontogentic/metabolic ratios) and when scrutinized the original authors admit the requisite measurements do not exist,and may ne decades away.
    Science 4 September 2009:
    Vol. 325. no. 5945, p. 1206
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1171303
    Prev | Table of Contents | Next
    Technical Comments
    Comment on “Energy Uptake and Allocation During Ontogeny”
    Anastassia M. Makarieva,1,2,* Victor G. Gorshkov,1,2 Bai-Lian Li2
    We demonstrate that the model of energy allocation during ontogeny of Hou et al. (Reports, 31 October 2008, p. 736) fails to account for the observed elevation of metabolic rate in growing organisms compared with similarly sized adults of different species. The basic model assumptions of the three-quarter power scaling for resting metabolism and constancy of the mass-specific maintenance metabolism need to be reassessed.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5945/1206-a
    Both Makarieva et al. and Sousa et al. imply that models such as ours and Bertalanffy’s are flawed because the small number of variables and parameters do not include an explicit treatment of the chemistry of the diet and metabolic pathways. We emphatically disagree that more general models cannot “shed new light on the fundamentals of ontogenetic growth.” Two parameters in our model, f and Em, are difficult to assess quantitatively with data currently available. f, the “activity scope,” is discussed above. Em, the quantity of energy used to synthesize a quantity of biomass, is a fundamental biological parameter. We find it surprising that even today there are few data that can be used to estimate the value of Em, let alone to assess how it may vary with diet, type of tissue being synthesized, taxon of organism, and environmental conditions. Indeed, most of the data used to inspire and evaluate our models of growth and by Makarieva et al. in their critique come from studies conducted decades ago. Without models that call attention to fundamental features of biological energetics, additional decades likely will pass before biologists are motivated to make the relevant measurements.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5945/1206-c

  136. My 24 hours are up so I’ll deal with Pam’s question. Leif can wait.
    “Are you “wishing” it were so, like hoping it will get cold, or do you have another data source that says something different than anything I have seen about the comparison between public and private schools?” Pam
    Simple logic, Pam. Nothing under educational liberty would prevent a private school from emulating a government school. If that model proved to be the best then parents could send their kids there. So, worst case we end up with what we have now and I would have no basis for complaint.

  137. Back2Bat (21:45:26) :
    Faulty logic, Pam. Nothing under educational liberty would prevent a private school from emulating a government school. If that model proved to be the best then parents could send their kids there.
    Some parents cannot afford a private school.

  138. Back2Bat (21:45:26) :
    Faulty logic, Pam. Nothing under educational liberty would prevent a private school from emulating a government school. If that model proved to be the best then parents could send their kids there.
    Some parents cannot afford a private school.

  139. Leif Svalgaard (00:09:54) :

    Some parents cannot afford a private school.
    I notice that the resources to provide every American child an expensive, government education is available so it is a matter of allocation and management of resources not lack of them.
    Since parents are taxed directly and indirectly to pay for the expensive government school system, it is no wonder if they can’t pay for a private school in addition.

  140. Back2Bat (06:35:41) :
    Since parents are taxed directly and indirectly to pay for the expensive government school system, it is no wonder if they can’t pay for a private school in addition.
    Pure nonsense. “If they can’t afford bread, let them eat cake then”. The people that cannot pay for schools don’t pay taxes either.

  141. Leif Svalgaard (07:40:02) :
    The people that cannot pay for schools don’t pay taxes either.
    When the poor person buys a loaf of bread he pay the taxes on that bread. But let’s assume he is a net tax consumer. Any school I know of would be very willing to offer a scholarship to a talented but poor child. Those who now pay school taxes could instead donate to the school of their choice.
    But I am not opposed to a basic, fall back, no-frills, reading, writing and arithmetic government solution. The safety net cannot be made too comfortable, however, because then it becomes a comfortable but expensive hammock.

  142. Back2Bat (08:19:47) :
    Those who now pay school taxes could instead donate to the school of their choice.
    to madrases, perhaps. No, children have the right to an education free of their parents’ prejudices. Economics often makes it difficult to achieve this in practice, which is another matter.

  143. Leif Svalgaard (08:34:17) :
    No, children have the right to an education free of their parents’ prejudices.
    But what about free from yours? Is it possible you are wrong? Will not truth prevail on a level playing field? Isn’t that what this blog is about?
    Tony was right to ban me for a hint of violence. But in my defense, I was accused of being an ankle biter. I just went along with the metaphor and it probably is a true one in my case. But Achilles had his vulnerable heel, if you recall. Fencing is the metaphor, I like. Elegant, fast, subtle but with only puncture wounds that should heal.
    En guard!

  144. Back2Bat (09:24:05) :
    “children have the right to an education free of their parents’ prejudices.”
    But what about free from yours? Is it possible you are wrong?

    Science is self-correcting and children should be taught that too. Religion on the other hand is absolute truths [am I wrong on this? – should children be told that the next version of the Quraan or whatever Holy Book you prefer will overthrow the current religious paradigm?]. It is an absolute, inerrant truth that 72 virgins are awaiting me in paradise [if I blow myself up]. I can hardly wait 🙂
    Will not truth prevail on a level playing field?
    No, that is utter nonsense. Truth will emerge from observation and experiments, regardless of the other players on the field and on how level it is. In fact, it should be as uneven as possible, providing the maximum number of obstacles and uphill slopes for inerrant truths to climb and falter on.
    Isn’t that what this blog is about?
    It is what this blog should be about if we could weed out the religious nonsense.
    REPLY: You two guys are at it again. Don’t make me shut down the thread. Disagree and disengage. – Anthony

  145. Really Tony, it is not like we are going at each with guns and knives. It’s your blog, however. You remind me of my mother, all she wants is peace and quite. Poor lady!
    REPLY: things you don’t consider.
    1) I have to (or another moderator) read each comment and decide if it violates policy. It’s a lot of extra work to moderate personal arguments
    2) If not moderated, someone will seize on the comments and use them to discredit me such as “Watts endorses violence” Don’t say it won’t happen, because it has indeed happened before and I’ve had to deal with it.
    3) The headline on some other blog won’t mention the anonymous coward (you). It will name me.
    So unless you want to put your name to your words (and you’ve already ducked that suggestion) my suggestion to you is to kindly shut the hell up and take your personal argument with Leif elsewhere. You are still welcome to comment on other matters provided you stay in policy. – Anthony

  146. Back2Bat (10:00:14) :
    Here is a link that supports my statement that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life.
    The link makes the assumption of intelligent life even on this planet dubious.
    Most of the parameters have nothing to do with life and none of them is a determining factor for ‘intelligent life’. Perhaps I missed it. Provide the number(s) that single out intelligence.
    We have already observed more than 400 planets in the solar neighborhood with a fair number of them with similar composition as the Earth and with a good chance that some of them will be within the ‘habitable zone’.

  147. Here is my name Tony.
    Steven Stanley Stipulkoski.
    4225 N. 1st Ave,#505
    Tucson, AZ 85719
    Satisfied?
    Coward? You presume too much.
    Leif,
    My email is moonbat1775@cox.net
    REPLY: The term “anonymous coward” is a net standard coined by the BBS and USENET, and commonly used automatically on slashdot.org
    It even has its own Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Coward
    So I’m referring to it by definition, but nice to see you step up! Good on you. – Anthony

  148. Leif Svalgaard (10:25:34) :
    The link makes the assumption of intelligent life even on this planet dubious.
    That is the point.
    Most of the parameters have nothing to do with life and none of them is a determining factor for ‘intelligent life’. Perhaps I missed it. Provide the number(s) that single out intelligence.
    Intelligent life is even less likely since that is an additional requirement.

  149. Back2Bat (10:47:50) :
    “The link makes the assumption of intelligent life even on this planet dubious.”
    That is the point.

    Means She failed.
    Intelligent life is even less likely since that is an additional requirement.
    almost none of the other parameters are requirements for life in general. And most of them are not independent [and should therefore not be multiplied]. To determine a universe where life can evolve only about six parameters must be fixed.
    And you do not understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori probability. Last night I got a lousy Bridge hand. The a priori probability to get that hand was (52,13) = 1/635,013,559,600; i.e. so small that I could only have gotten it by divine providence [or perhaps retribution]. The a posteriori probability was 1, because I did get it. We have already found more than 400 planets around nearby stars, and the Kepler spacecraft will discover thousands more in the coming years. The compositions of those are similar to that of the solar system and about a tenth would be in the habitable zone. So, probability argues for zillions of livable planets.

  150. Anthony,
    You are gracious. I won’t battle Leif on this site anymore since that is not its purpose.
    Best wishes
    Steven
    Leif,
    You have email address.

Comments are closed.