From Roger Pielke Senior’s Climate Science Blog. There is an Associated Press [AP] news article today by Dina Cappiello, Seth Borenstein and Kevin Freking titled “Poll: US belief in global warming is cooling”.
In this article the reporters perpetuate the myth that
“Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.”
This is not true and is a case of the media seeking to make up news.
We have already documented that a significant minority of climate scientists do not consider greenhouse gases as the primary cause for global warming, and, more generally, cause climate change; e.g. see
Brown, F., J. Annan, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?
and
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.
In the coming month, we will be presenting another article that documents that the AP authors are erroneous in their claim “that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.”
If the reporters want to be balanced in their presentations, rather than lobbyists and advocates, they would persue the validity of their claim. So far, however, they have failed in this journalistic role.
Well at least I am comfortable knowing that I am part of a vast global warming denial conspiracy!
Has anybody told AP yet?
We have a long fight ahead:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/forget-global-warming-sky-really-could-fall
So what IS a vast majority?
better than 95% of the peer reviewed literature.
Vs.
“An online poll of scientists’ opinions … “
Next!
Who cares about opinions? Or polls for that matter.
New cold shot underway: It can’t come at a better moment.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=rss&article=5
Soon the Team will be bleating that scientific consensus doesn’t mean that the science is right and quoting Galileo all over the place.
The problem with ‘checking for themselves’ is that once you have found what you are looking for, you stop looking (You will always find your keys in the very last place you look).
Entertaining ideas that go against what you believe or understand, especially if you have invested time and effort in that belief, is not a pleasant or desirable experience for most people. In other words this (AP) article states: “There are more stupid and ignorant Americans now than there was X months ago: these are the ‘facts’ and these people are ignoring the facts.”
Lazy minds follow the herd and do not look into the facts before they make decisions. Some use the excuse that the subject is too complex, this too is an excuse for laziness.
I wonder just how many of that “vast majority” are just keeping their own counsel. Maybe they let their fellows assume that they are on-board when they are really skeptical of the “crisis” claims. It might be interesting to seek their opinion of the “emperor’s new clothes” [Hans Christian Andersen] on a confidential basis.
.
There is something else. Expressing skepticism about AGW is a good way to get your “tires slashed.” I’m speaking metaphorically. Sheep by their very nature seek the safety of the herd regardless of where the herd is headed.
My problem is in that they only consider “climate scientists”. As we all know, many different fields of science are involved in “climate science”, and more. I mean, even certain politicians consider themselves experts in climate…
True Science (and scientists) does not listen to politically driven polls. Once we are all gone, the Universe will still do its things, as it always did.
For anyone with access to the BBC iplayer, the Clive James 10min talk about scepticism and concensus is very well worth listening to at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00n9lm3
I don’t think he will be heard much longer at the beeb.
Sorry good people but a scientific consenses is not like a a shared system of political beliefs or the vote. A majority of conservative voters against AWG is a herd. A majority of scientists for AGW is simply the truth as we currently know it. Sorry!
I don’t understand the science but what I *do* understand is that this site tells me all I need to know about what I don’t understand. And that for me is what it is all about. I love you guys, even if I don’t understand you… at the very least, I’m persuaded that somebody is looking after my interests! Keep up the good work!!
It’s a shame that NASA has a paid liar on staff….1st it was the ice age of 77 and now it’s AGW of 09. Fire Hansen now! What a joke. Do they think we are totally stupid?
The people in Wasington and the media of New York remind me of Germany in the 1930’s. Can you say propagana? Mind Control? Brown Shirts, are they next?
[Reply – Let’s not go there, please. ~ Evan]
It is significant that when asked “Is there solid evidence the earth is warming because of human activity?” Only 36% respond “Yes.” I think that it is fair to say that, at least according to Pew Research Center, only 36% of those polled believe in the AGW crisis.
.
If the “progressives” are going to forge ahead with their Cap & Trade scheme [what are they calling it this week?] with only 36% supporting it, they may have some big problems in the November 2010 elections.
.
When a record of enmity towards the private ownership of firearms became a problem for some of our “public servants” during the last election, we saw many of them photographed “duck hunting.” How are they going to handle 2010? Perhaps we will see the usual suspects photographed driving huge SUV’s. 🙂
So what is “a vast majority” ?
I don’t know either but I’m guessing that if you graphed it, you’d end up with a Hockey Stick.
Yeah! Get rid of liars… and idiots!
So long as we have sites like this that uphold truth over pseudo-scientific nonsense, we’ll be safe. But don’t get complacent!
I read somwhere today that the Universe is only 11 billion years old, and expanding (whatever that is supposed to mean): (a) its a helluva lot younger than that (and I can give references, Mr Scientist-probably-working-for-Nature/Science) and (b) if it is expanding, than how come it takes me no longer to get home now than 10 years ago??? Pah!
Well the AP is not alone in continuing to spout the party line; despite ongoing observations that go against both the computer models, and the VASDT concensus majority of AGW adherents.
The November 2009 issue of Scientific American contains an editorial Opinion piece promoting the Copenhagen lovefest; and declaring that the USA has to apologise for messing up the world that was enjoyed by all those stone age civil;isations that want to continue their hunter gatherer existence, and don’t want any modern inconveniences; then we have to give up our sovereignty and foot the bills for a one world government that will tell us how we are allowed to live.
Then they added a NEWS SCAN piece by somebody named David Appell; of unknown scientific credentials; who nevertheless writes frequently about climate issues. In this Article “Still Hotter Than Ever” he goes on promoting the discredited Mann Hockey Stick and promotes a new study by one Martin Tingley of Harvard University; a theseis that was submitted ot the Journal of Climate.
Not only does Appell trot out Mann’s greaph; which is clearly labelled “NORTHERN HEMISPHERE”; ie a local anomaly; not a global phenomenon; we lear that Tingley’s new study fully corroborates Mann’s Northern Hemisphere result; by presenting a new more universal study that now replaces Mann’s NORTHERN HEMISPHERE with data from +45 to + 85 degrees north latitude.
Now as any geometer knows, the northern hemisphere from the equator to +45 deg north latitude, comprises 70 .70% of the northern hemisphere surface, so the cap north of +45 deg Latitude is only 29.29% of the northern hemisphere surface. A similar calculation shows that the cap north of +85 deg is only 0.3% of the northern hemisphere surface, so the area from +45 to +85 is 29% of the nothern hemisphere, or 14.5% of the earth’s surface; and encompasses vey little of the earth’s ocean surface.
So not satisfied with Mann’s NORTHERN HEMISPHERE local anomaly; Tingley’s response is to present a study of 14.5% of the surface which is very atypical of the globae as a whole.
Not to be outdone; SA presents a paper by Mark Z Jacobson; prof of Civil and environmental Engineering at Stanford U, and Mark A Delucchi; a research scientist at the Institute of Transpotation Studies at UC Davis.
These two authors declare that by the year 2030; that is 20 years and two months from now; the world can supply ALL 100% of ALL of its energy needs FOR ALL APPLICATIONS from renewable sources; wind, water, and solar; all of which are actually solar energy. And with NO consumption of fossil fuels at all for any energy purpose; And they describe how they are going to do it.
They are going to build 3.8 million wind turbines each being 5 megaWatts peak capacity; and so on.
Well here is my challenge to Jacobson/Delucci.
Since you two are so convinced that you can do this; why not start now by eschewing ALL fossil fuels energy sources RIGHT NOW; and start building your fossil fuel free infrastructure right now usin ONLY RENEWABLE WIND/WATER/SOLAR energy FOR ANY AND ALL WORK TO BE DONE and including the full life support of all of the people who will work on your project.
Since you are so convinced that renewable energy can supply 100% of the world’s total energy needs with CURRENT TECHNOLOGY; start using it to bootstrap the system to a fossil fuel free world.
If you can run the entire project using zero based budgeting including for energy input; and no fossil fuel energy being used anywhere in the process, including any mining activities for the raw materials you need for your scheme; then I’m all for your scheme.
Oh by the way; you didn’t mention in your article how you will maintain the system free of any terrorist threats.
Abd as you both know; the Desert Southwest is already locked up by conservation laws; just like most of the recently found fossil fuel reserves in the USA; so don’t even think of covering the four corners deserts with solar cells.
The authors do a lot of hand waving to solve the present technological hurdles to success by simply saying they will be solved.
They are all in favor of all electric kitchens to eliminate natural gas cooking and heating and such; and will use electricity to hydolyse water to get hydrogen for cars to charge all the lithium batteries etc. Internal combustion engines are so inefficient. Notwithstanding that gasoline running a very inefficient IC engine has ten times the range of any all electric battery powered vehicle; electricity is so efficient compared to IC engines.
Have you ever considered how innefficient it is to take thermal energy, and convert it to electricity, and then use that electricity to make heat for cooking and hot water.
It ought to be a felony to use electricity to make heat.
Well; you need to read the article for yourselves. They even claim that wind turbines have a 98% on line factor on land and 95% for sea turbines; whereas coal fired plants only run 87.5% of the time.
That will be news to the Europeans whoi find their wind turbines working about 15-20% of the time; not 98%.
But I like my simple challenge; start doing your project in a 100% carbon free; no fossil fuels closed cycle; recirculating the output of your renewable energy sources; for every last item of endeavor required to build and sustain and maintain you renewable Utopia; and all the persons that it takes to do and their families.
There is only one thing 100% of all climate scientists in the world agree on and that is the fact that the proposed cap and trade program being proposed in the US cannot possibly make any measurable difference in the earth’s temperature.
Why not call it what it is…a lie!?
The Senate is taking up Cap & Trade next week . Get ready .
So 80-85% of scientists at least concur or believe the the human effects are understated. I guess it depends on you definition of “vast majority”, but 80-85% qualifies it in my book. I wouldn’t call that erroneous.
Glen Beck announced this evening on his segment jon Foxnews that Lord Monckton would be a guest on his segment next week. No link, sorry. should be something to watch for.