Another survey shows public opinion on global warming is in decline

From a press release by George Mason University:

American Opinion Cools on Global Warming


FAIRFAX, Va., January 27, 2010—Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to the results of a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

The survey found:

•    Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease.

•    The percentage of Americans who think global warming is happening has declined 14 points, to 57 percent.

•    The percentage of Americans who think global warming is caused mostly by human activities dropped 10 points, to 47 percent.

In line with these shifting beliefs, there has been an increase in the number of Americans who think global warming will never harm people in the United States or elsewhere or other species.

“Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change. “Over the past year the United States has experienced rising unemployment, public frustration with Washington and a divisive health care debate, largely pushing climate change out of the news. Meanwhile, a set of emails stolen from climate scientists and used by critics to allege scientific misconduct may have contributed to an erosion of public trust in climate science.”

The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists. For example, Americans’ trust in the mainstream news media as a reliable source of information about global warming declined by 11 percentage points, television weather reporters by 10 points and scientists by 8 points. They also distrust leaders on both sides of the political fence. Sixty-five percent distrust Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin as sources of information, while 53 percent distrust former Democratic Vice President Al Gore and 49 percent distrust President Barack Obama.

Finally, Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening decreased 13 points, to 34 percent, while 40 percent of the public now believes there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening or not.

“The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human-caused and a serious threat to communities across America,” said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue.”

The results come from a nationally representative survey of 1,001 American adults, age 18 and older. The sample was weighted to correspond with U.S. Census Bureau parameters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence. The survey was designed by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities and conducted from December 23, 2009, to January 3, 2010 by Knowledge Networks using an online research panel of American adults.

A copy of the report can be downloaded from:

http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/CC_in_the_American_Mind_Jan_2010.pdf

###

Advertisements

129 thoughts on “Another survey shows public opinion on global warming is in decline

  1. Ahhh, it’s a new day in the culture wars.

    How refreshing to read the online front page of the Australian this morning. Editorial suggesting the IPCC has run its course, Bjorn Lomborg suggesting the same and that Rudd drop his ETS, The British Chief Scientist critical of the whole process and 64% of 5000 respondents to a poll stating that they do not believe in climate science at all!

    it doesn’t get much better but it looks like it probably will :)

    Cheers

    Michael

  2. “Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate.

    despite an obvious bias in the project director’s opinion, public opinion is moving in the other direction.

  3. Director of Center for Climate Change Communication

    Director, Yale Project for Climate Change

    Wow. Bonfire of the Quangos required. Still both adopting the science is settled riposte, I see. Mind you, over here, we have outreach climate change diversity officers, of course, all on $75k a year.

    \rant over

  4. “Finally, Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening decreased 13 points, to 34 percent, while 40 percent of the public now believes there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening or not.”

    Fantastic! Now I have a new retort for the “scientific consensus” zealots:

    The consensus among American citizens is that there is no scientific consensus on AGW. Since a larger consensus always trumps a smaller consensus, your alleged scientific consensus has been effectively smacked down.

  5. The world has grown up: 11th Century dogmatic edicts won’t do anymore.
    Neo (11:31:09) :

    … but the science is “settled” .. like solids in a cesspool

    and despite the loudspeaker blaring “Come on in, the water’s fine”, the public isn’t buying it.
    Ya think it could be the smell of rotting scam?

  6. They are correct on one point: The public should be educated on this very important issue.

    Somehow, watching the poll numbers drop, I think that is happening.

  7. “53 percent distrust former Democratic Vice President Al Gore”. Wow, that means 47% trust him? Yikes, that’s amazing.

  8. “The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human-caused and a serious threat to communities across America”. Has anybody here seen such clear evidence, or have any idea what specifically this guy is talking about?

  9. The opinion of the government in India is shifting as well.

    http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_pachauri-unlikely-to-head-pm-s-solar-mission_1340055

    New Delhi: RK Pachauri became the head of the United Nations’ intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) in 2002 after India put him up as its official candidate. But after seven years and many bloopers by the IPCC, New Delhi now seems to be distancing itself from its once favourite climate ambassador.

    Sources say that the embarrassment over Pachauri is so acute in Delhi’s power corridors that he is no more on the list of hopefuls likely to head the prime minister’s national solar mission. Until a few weeks ago, government sources say, Pachauri was leading the race to head the mission to produce 20,000 MW electricity by 2022.

    What is assured for now is the fact that the Centre is formally distancing itself from Pachauri. The government of India had nominated Pachauri’s name for the post of IPCC chairman in March 2002 through its permanent mission in the US. But now, the government is not ready to comment on the recent controversies that have surrounded the climate expert.

    Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh said: “I was dismissed for peddling voodoo science, but the ministry was right on the report on Himalayan glaciers. The claims of IPCC don’t have an iota of scientific evidence.” Ramesh, however, said the government was not demanding Pachauri’s resignation.

  10. All the people who were saying Global Warming was going to catastrophically disrupt lives and livelihoods (aka the media, the ‘scientists’, and the politicians) were telling the truth.

    Its just that it’s disrupting their lives and livelihoods, not ours.

  11. Great, but this is also the nation which allegedly hardly believes in evulution. How do we know it’s not kidding this time too?

  12. The most important fact for the scientific community:

    “The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists.”

    That’s my opinion,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  13. “Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide”
    Just exactly where is this evidence, please, Mr Leiserowitz? They just can’t let go, can they?

  14. It looks like the UN is ready to give up its campaign to get big bucks from a global transaction tax to improve the global climate. Now the UN has started a campaign to get big bucks from a global transaction tax to improve global health.

    That’s different right? I know that the same people are to be taxed the same way by the same corrupt organization, but if we won’t save the climate surely we will save the children.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583127,00.html

    They could call the new group the Intergovernmental Panel for Children’s Change and reuse the old stationary.

  15. Folk wisdom: Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas

    After institutional science, as represented by the AAAS, the APS and publications such as Science, Nature
    or, on a more popular plane New Scientist and Scientific American chose to drink the AGW Kool Aid,
    it should not expect any continued special status or deference from the general public it has helped mislead.

    This is probably a tragedy for everyone, because science is still the best tool we have to ensure a decent future for mankind.

  16. @Michael In Sydney
    “it doesn’t get much better but it looks like it probably will :)”

    I’m afraid I’m not so sure, though there’s undoubtedly plenty of room for optimism at the moment. I have several highly intelligent, long-term friends, who from time to time I try to cajole to become more sceptical about AGW. It’s a deeply demoralising experience most of the time. Any attempt to get them seriously to consider the science or the financial and political ramifications of the problem seems well-nigh impossible. Their usual response tends to be: sceptics are all in the pay of big bad businesses; what they tell you is lies; what we have been told by the experts is true and it’s truth that matters, so you must realise how wrong you are; you’ve fallen for the right-wing propaganda etc. etc.. I’m sure so many of you will know the routine so I shan’t go on at length on that point.

    They would be horrified to be told that they are unthinking believers; they are decent men who think and read and talk about the environment, politics and the world (though not usually in that order). They would see themselves as, and they emphatically are, serious men who seek knowledge and enlightenment. However, they seem unable to see that AGW is diverting so many resources away from making the world a nicer place to be just through good stewardship and housekeeping and, besides, has the clear hallmarks of an Extraordinary Popular Delusion stamped all over it, a perfect time for sociopaths and the power-hungry to take even more to themselves.

    I don’t actually differ from them on many social and “straight” environmental issues, seeing no contradiction between being sceptical of the AGW dogma and its flawed scientific basis and having an interest in the overall welfare of the planet and its inhabitants.

    I realise that this reminds me greatly of being 14, the only professed atheist in the class (a long time ago now) – and the amusement, anxiety and patronising disdain that that would generate. Most people simply thought I was a bit touched to be bothering about such things and ought to spend more time playing rugby or some other useful, preferably physical, occupation. But these are my oldest friends and I wouldn’t want to lose them through becoming importunate. A dilemma and sometimes a cause for self-questioning as to my own views and how I try to communicate them.

    Sorry for the length – WUWT, I think you’ve become my agony aunt for tonight. Thanks for that and also for doing such important work. I envy you your courage and tenacity.

  17. Soren:

    So true! What I fear, and I tried warning such sanctimonious bloggers as PG mYers about several years ago, is that by linking evolution deniers to climate ‘deniers’ they are setting themselves up for a fall when the climate house of cards collapses. I have been composing my not too arrogant “I warned you” e-mail to send him as soon as I feel our momentum is irrevocable and I see the first links from the Discovery INstitute stating that scientists as a class can’t be trusted and evolution is just more fabricated nonsense.

  18. debreuil (12:01:47) :

    “All the people who were saying Global Warming was going to catastrophically disrupt lives and livelihoods were telling the truth.

    Its just that it’s disrupting their lives and livelihoods, not ours.”

    Sorry, but I had to laugh! hehe.

    And that “Carbon Dioxide Information Agency” ? Or what was it?

    Will it change its name?

    -Nitrogen Information Agency? NIA?
    -Methane Information Agency ? MIA?
    -Soot Information Agency ? SIA?
    -Gas Information Agency? GIA?
    -Baloney Information Agency? BIA?

    No, I got it!
    -Plant Food Information Agency ! PFIA.

  19. I hope I’m not alone, but I keep getting a feeling that the whole AGW schtick is a “happy face” painted on an otherwise unhappy scenario. Sure, fossil fuels will run out one day, global oil production will (or has) peak(ed), and we are sending bucket loads of cash overseas to countries that don’t like us, but if this is the underlying story why can’t policymakers be square with us ?

    Higgins: It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then? Joe Turner: Ask them? Higgins: Not now – then! Ask ’em when they’re running out. Ask ’em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ’em when their engines stop. Ask ’em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ’em. They’ll just want us to get it for ’em!

    Did the 1975 film, “Three Days of the Condor” so scare policymakers that they believe that they can’t level with the American people, or is it that their current strategy requires fooling the current OPEC countries until they exhaust their supplies ? The latter would explain the failure to develop domestic oil sources and concentrate on “renewables” like bio-fuels, that are carbon based and would add to AGW sources (an AGW paradox).
    Or is this all merely a plot by politicians to raise taxes out of thin air ?

  20. What I love is these authoritative academicians who love to say that the evidence is overwhelming regarding GW and we are either not warming at all or even cooling.

    Do these guys ever brush up on their general knowledge of the subject or do they just spout mindlessly the same drivel year after year? They must simply watch AIT for a review once a year and toast Al Gore.

  21. Lucy Skywalker (12:02:33) :

    Very much so, Lucy. Global Warming jokes are all the rage now.
    “Cold enough for ya?”

  22. Sören (12:02:36) :

    “Great, but this is also the nation which allegedly hardly believes in evulution. How do we know it’s not kidding this time too?”

    Because not believing in evolution doesn’t cost very much?

  23. That study was conducted Dec 24 2009 to Jan 3 2010. I would hazard a guess that there is now a greater decline and growing.

  24. Results: Climate science

    Thanks for voting!
    How much do you trust scientific projections concerning global warming?

    * Completely 8.45% (491 votes)
    * Somewhat 12% (697 votes)
    * A little 15.1% (877 votes)
    * Not at all 64.45% (3744 votes)

    Total votes: 5809

    Source The Australian Newspaper

  25. Oliver K. Manuel (12:06:03) :

    On the other hand, the public is studying with a lot more intensity what science is saying. That means they are now scrutinizing instead of simply parroting what they have previously been spoon-fed.
    I would hope that the pretenders are blown off sooner rather than later.
    And more importantly, they might put some pressure on an Administration that seems bent on funding poly-research at the expense of all other.

  26. “The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human-caused and a serious threat to communities across America,” said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue.”

    Just another parrot, though more vocal than the Norwegian Grey.

    ————

    Henry chance (11:38:48) :

    It will officially be over when Ruddles gives up.

    You are causing serious confusion here in a Brit. Ruddles, from Rutland (the smallest county in England) make rather good beer, to our tastes anyway. We would hate to think of them giving up. Now you wouldn’t want to put a fellow sceptic off his beer, would you?

    Whatever happened to KRudd747?

  27. Neo (11:31:09) :

    … but the science is “settled” .. like solids in a cesspool

    That is not a Snickers bar.

  28. Maurice Garoutte (12:17:08) :
    That UN new tax money would go directly not to children but to pharmaceutical companies which will deliver dubious drugs for imaginary/invented diseases like the AH1N1 virus flue vaccine (recently found being made from active bird flu virus and not from its attenuated form)

    http://www.masterjules.net/baxter.htm

    Most probably the eventual beneficiaries from the Climate Change scam are the same ones and owners of these labs.

  29. The last two years have been cold in the US and Europe, and people have figured out that they are being misled.

  30. I really hate to say this but G.W. Bush was right… even though this guy and his family deserve their day in court for their many sins…

    Q: What about global warming?

    BUSH: It’s an issue that we need to take very seriously. I don’t think we know the solution to global warming yet and I don’t think we’ve got all the facts before we make decisions.

    GORE: But I disagree that we don’t know the cause of global warming. I think that we do. It’s pollution, carbon dioxide and other chemicals that are even more potent. Look, the world’s temperatures going up, weather patterns are changing, storms are getting more violent and unpredictable. And what are we going to tell our children?

    BUSH: Yeah, I agree. Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.

    Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

  31. Even “Nature” is less worried:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8483722.stm

    “The most alarming forecasts of natural systems amplifying the human-induced greenhouse effect may be too high, according to a new report.
    The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2.
    It says this will increase the effects of man-made warming – but much less than recent research has suggested.
    The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.
    Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high. ”

    I’m pretty sure their level of concern was hysterical until recently.

  32. global warming causes global warming! what a convoluted piece this is.

    27 Jan: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Global warming to trigger more warming-study
    Mankind’s climate change frees CO2 from nature-study
    Slightly reinforces global warming
    But feedback less than in some recent studies
    “We are confirming that the feedback exists and is positive. That’s bad news,” lead author David Frank of the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL said of the study in Thursday’s edition of the journal Nature.
    “But if we compare our results with some recent estimates (showing a bigger feedback effect) then it’s good news,” Frank, an American citizen, told Reuters of the report with other experts in Switzerland and Germany.
    The data, based on natural swings in temperatures from 1050-1800, indicated that a rise of one degree Celsius (1.6 degree Fahrenheit) would increase carbon dioxide concentrations by about 7.7 parts per million in the atmosphere.
    That is far below recent estimates of 40 ppm that would be a much stronger boost to feared climate changes such as floods, desertification, wildfires, rising sea levels and more powerful storm, they said.
    Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have already risen to about 390 ppm from about 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. Only some models in the last major U.N. climate report, in 2007, included assessments of carbon cycle feedbacks.
    Frank said the new study marks an advance by quantifying feedback over the past 1,000 years and will help refine computer models for predicting future temperatures…
    “In a warmer climate, we should not expect pleasant surprises in the form of more efficient uptake of carbon by oceans and land,” Hugues Goosse of the Universite Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, wrote in a comment in Nature.
    The experts made 220,000 comparisons of carbon dioxide levels — trapped in tiny bubbles in annual layers of Antarctic ice — against temperatures inferred from natural sources such as tree rings or lake sediments over the years 1050-1800.
    Goosse said the study refined a general view that rising temperatures amplify warming from nature even though some impacts are likely to suck carbon dioxide from the air.
    Carbon might be freed to the air by a projected shift to drier conditions in some areas, for instance in the east Amazon rainforest. But that could be partly offset if temperatures rise in the Arctic, allowing more plants to grow.
    Warmer soils might accelerate the respiration of tiny organisms, releasing extra carbon dioxide to the air. Wetlands or oceans may also release carbon if temperatures rise.
    Frank said it was hard to say how the new findings might have altered estimates in a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 that world temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 Celsius by 2100.
    “Of the models that did include the carbon cycle, our results suggests that those with slightly below average feedbacks might be more accurate,” he said. “But we can’t now say exactly what sort of temperature range that would imply.”
    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE60Q261.htm

  33. Tom G(ologist): Makes me wonder if the evolution-deniers is basically the same or the other crowd?

    nigel jones: but then AGW-skepticism is a cheaper choice too!

  34. Hey guys! Have you already forgotten we’re in a Maunder like minimum?
    As told by many real scientists (not from Hollywood Boulevard) temps will keep getting lower until reaching a bottom around 2030-2050.

  35. Ray (11:28:42) : CO2 is only dangerous when you put a plastic bag on your head. Should be Quote of the Week Great Ray, very funny!

  36. “The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.”

    The average global warming trend per least square trends for the past 150 years according to the[HADCRUT 3gl] data was 0.004/ year. The MET -OFFICE prediction is 0.08 /year [ based on 4C BY 2060]. This is 20 times faster than in the past 150 years. With a possible cooling spell coming over the next 20-30 years[ or until 2030/2040 ], the warming rate would have now have to rise to 0.2C/year between 2040 and 2060 or 50 times the past rate. Unless we get at least a couple more suns , the warming biased agw climate predictions have little credibilty in my judgement and continue to be an exaggeration to brainwash and falsely pressure the public for more research money.

  37. I think it’s time for a poll question that really gets to the heart of the matter. I suggest the following

    Do you believe that climate science knows enough about future changes in the global climate and exactly how detrimental they will be, that your government should be able to force you to surrender your personal freedom and thousands of dollars of yours and your children’s financial assets to them, to be dispersed to various kleptocrat Third World dictators, UN bureaucrats, and fatcat carbon traders, in a very likely futile effort to change that future?

  38. Hey folks! Sorry for the off-topic, but I’m hoping someone can help me find the article here that discusses the mathematical problems with alternative energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. I remember it took a look at the actual idealized output of all major proposed alternative sources. For the life of me I can’t seem to put the right search terms together to find it.

    Thanks for any help you can give me!

  39. “The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue.”

    Again, they insult everyone by calling them stupid.

    But they can’t admit that the public is educated about this issue.

    Come to think of it, that’s a hard one to pull off.

    This survey is a farce.
    Probably half the people surveyed know that temps have gone up – a little –
    so calling it global warming covers that.

    If they were honest about the survey, they would have started out with calling it
    man-made-global warming.

    That would give an entirely different result.

  40. The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists. For example, Americans’ trust in the mainstream news media as a reliable source of information about global warming declined by 11 percentage points, television weather reporters by 10 points and scientists by 8 points. They also distrust leaders on both sides of the political fence. Sixty-five percent distrust Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin as sources of information, while 53 percent distrust former Democratic Vice President Al Gore and 49 percent distrust President Barack Obama.

    I distrust this survey 100%.

  41. Speaking of public opinion and global warming. I wonder if Ellie Light (of Obama support letters fame) is an alias for global warming. From the movie Deep Impact, E.L.E (Extinction Level Event) was thought to be Ellie )a female mistress) by a reporter in the movie. Ellie Light can then be global warming. The liberal environazis are writing the Obama letters.

  42. @ Dr A Burns (12:59:17) :
    “I wonder if the 47% who believe in man caused global warming is the same group (50%) who believe in alien abductions ?
    http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/
    Perhaps it’s no coincidence that 50% of the population is below average intelligence ! (Median is almost identical to mean for IQ).”

    I’ve no idea whether your suggestion is sound or not but, on my own experience, I’d say it’s not necessarily so. In an earlier post above I mentioned the apparently unbudgeable views of some of my friends. All of them are well above both median and mean IQ, are extremely well-educated and would simply scoff at the concept of alien abductions or similar popular fantasies.

  43. Regarding RichieP (12:23:11) :

    I sympathize with your dilemma. I have sent my Oxford PHD daughter, Mckitrick’s two overviews of the “hockey stick”, links to the Weigman and North reports, several summaries by Lindzen and Spencer, the OISM petition overview signed by over 31,000 scientist, over 9,000 PHD scientist, and several other links.

    I have told her this is just the surface of a very deep minefield. I have expressed that it does not matter if you agree, disagree or do not care, just come out of the academia Ivory Tower and see there may just be something to see, only to have her say she spoke to some science professors and they just roll their eyes and say the science is settled, the hockey stick was minor statistical disputes common with most papers, move along. This and her “Beserkley” husband I think make it easier for her to keep the blinders on and claim it is an “american” layman movement backed by those evil oil companies and republicans. Ahhggdeklfglkdsjtghjero!!

  44. Steve Goddard (13:08:23) said:

    The last two years have been cold in the US and Europe, and people have figured out that they are being misled.

    But Steve, the warming is in the pipeline! Hide the decline!

  45. Here it comes:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100023947/its-official-glaciers-are-disappearing/

    “Just as you may have thought it was safe to go back onto the glaciers, two new reports have come out to say that they are melting rapidly after all, indicating that many will disappear within decades.”

    Quite stunning in the circumstances. Cites a Prof Wilfried Haeberli. The comments are fun though. The WGMS is:

    “under the auspices of: ICSU (FAGS), IUGG (IACS), UNEP, UNESCO, WMO”

  46. Sören (12:02:36) :

    Great, but this is also the nation which allegedly hardly believes in evulution. How do we know it’s not kidding this time too?

    Blame the marketing of evolution for that.

    I can accept evolution, with the fossil record, the species changes over time, all of that. It’s just good engineering, having systems that adapt and change over time due to changing circumstances, to increase efficiency, etc. I also believe in God, an eternal presence, that watched evolution take place, may have tweaked it a bit…

    NO NO NO, that’s impossible. Why? Because there is no “god” in evolution. Not allowed. If you want to believe there was any outside involvement whatsoever, that is Intelligent Design which is creationism therefore you are a creationist. Now, note that one believes in God, it is not scientific as it is not falsifiable. You cannot prove either way that God does or does not exist. Likewise you cannot prove or disprove that a “higher power” influenced evolution. Scientifically you can state that no verifiable scientific evidence exists that shows involvement of a “higher intelligence” in evolution. It should be presented as agnostic, neither confirming nor denying, since science cannot prove either case. Instead, as it is marketed, evolution specifically excludes God. Indeed, by definition there is no higher power involved, which is then used as proof that no higher power exists. That’s the marketing, and that’s the problem.

    It does not matter how scientific I am, how much I accept. If the poll question asks if I believe in evolution or creationism, which by the marketing translates as do I believe God was not involved and doesn’t even exist, or do I believe there is a God who may have been involved, I have to mark down that I believe in creationism. I have no other choice. I know many people who feel the same way, we accept evolution, we believe in God, therefore we are labeled creationists. If others wish to think that means we reject evolution in favor of the 6-day Genesis account, if they want to think us stupid, eh, that’s their problem. My conscience is clear.

  47. The Beddington press release from the UK has made it into our local paper, The Christchurch Press. So finally the cracks are showing…

  48. Ray and Steve

    It’s the hypoxia (low oxygen level) that kills you when you put a plastic bag over your head, not the CO2.

    Increasing CO2 levels in humans merely makes them breathe harder. It may be sedative at high concentrations but there’s little evidence for this assertion.

  49. Maurice Garoutte (12:17:08) :

    It looks like the UN is ready to give up its campaign to get big bucks from a global transaction tax to improve the global climate. Now the UN has started a campaign to get big bucks from a global transaction tax to improve global health.

    I forget, who banned DDT.

  50. anthony, one of your WWF references included australia’s david karoly:

    WUWT: The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers
    Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/#more-15636

    karoly actually has input in IPCC aws well as WWF:

    Wikipedia: David Karoly
    Karoly has served as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 2 and is a member of the faculty of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne.
    Prior to his current position at University of Melbourne, Dr. Karoly was a professor at The University of Oklahoma School of Meteorology. He was the “Coordinating Lead Author” of a chapter in “the scientific assessment of climate change” published by the IPCC in 2001…
    Karoly was awarded a doctorate in Meteorology from the University of Reading.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karoly

    Global warming contributes to Australia’s worst drought : climate change / David Karoly, James Risbey and Anna Reynolds
    WWF Australia, 2003
    http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/818040

    2003: WWF: Top meteorologist keen to debate climate change link to drought
    Professor Karoly, whose research includes stratospheric ozone depletion, greenhouse climate change and climate variations associated with El Niño, was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 1999 in recognition of outstanding contributions to atmospheric and related sciences
    http://www.wwf.org.au/news/n17/

    WWF Praises Study Linking Human Activity, Climate Change
    In comparing observed warming with patterns anticipated by climate model simulations, Hansen said the research team, led by scientist David Karoly..
    http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-2362143_ITM

    Feb 2009: RealClimate: Bushfires and extreme heat in south-east Australia
    Guest commentary by David Karoly
    So, did climate change cause these fires? The simple answer is “No!” Climate change did not start the fires. Unfortunately, it appears that one or more of the fires may have been lit by arsonists, others may have started by accident and some may have been started by fallen power lines, lightning or other natural causes..
    Maybe there is a different way to phrase that question: In what way, if any, is climate change likely to have affected these bush fires?..
    Of course, the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on bushfires in southeast Australia or elsewhere in the world are not new or unexpected. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report WGII chapter “Australia and New Zealand” concluded……ETC
    Similarly, observed and expected increases in forest fire activity have been linked to climate change in the western US, in Canada and in Spain (Westerling et al, 2006; Gillett et al, 2004; Pausas, 2004). ..
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/bushfires-and-climate/

    19 Jan: Climate report reliable despite untested glacier claim: author
    A claim that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 should be removed from the UN’s benchmark scientific climate change study, an Australian lead author of the report says.
    But Professor David Karoly, who is listed as a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report, said the ”failure of the review process” does not mean that the main findings of the report – that carbon emissions by humans are warming the planet – are unreliable.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-report-reliable-despite-untested-glacier-claim-author-20100118-mgte.html

    a neat circle.

  51. Global warming?

    Forecasts of the climate a hundred years out?

    Horsefeathers!!

    Can’t even get a forecast that’s good 12 hours out! Today was supposed to be cold, windy, with scattered light flurries. The models said so. The air was too dry for any significant snow. Trust the models. Well, two out of three ain’t bad. It was cold and windy, but what good is a lake effect snow warning when it’s issued several hours after it’s been snowing. Guess I’ll run my errands on Friday, assuming we only get a foot of snow tomorrow.

  52. @ Chris H (15:06:27) :

    CO2 is still dangerous. See the MSDS:

    Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes.

    Thus you can clearly see the need for extreme global vigilance with constant monitoring and strict controls, as we must ensure we never go above 20,000 ppm to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences. 10,000 ppm to stay on the safe side.

  53. What is most interesting in the US is the decline of support despite a media blackout (for the most part). The online media has been rather effective in moving the terms of the debate.

  54. ” Sören (12:02:36) : Great, but this is also the nation which allegedly hardly believes in evulution. How do we know it’s not kidding this time too? ”

    I think “believe” being used in a science discussion is a fundamental conceptual/logical fault. ??Believe in Chemistry?? ??Believe in Biology?? etc, etc . . . . ??Believe in Evolution?? If one says “believe” then we have left the realm of rational scientific discussion into the zone of nonfactual subjective supranatural wandering. If one says “believe in (any area of science)” then they are out of the sciencific zone on that science.

    John

  55. Re: the laments above about the educated classes:

    George Orwell “some things are so stupid, so devoid of reason and sense, that only an intellectual would believe them.”

  56. I know this has already been posted in the “Tips and Notes”, But things are moving so quickly now, I hope the repetition doesn’t upset anyone.

    The BBC spinning like crazy.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm

    CO2 has a small effect on “Climate Change”, but we still need to build those bomb shelters and refuges.

    Let’s be honest, you really could not make it up.

  57. Last year, I made a computer model that showed that the public’s belief in man-made global warming would virtually disappear by 2020…

    http://algorelied.com/?p=1332

    Just months later it seems that positive feedback in the form of Climategate et al, is causing loss of belief in man-made global warming to disappear EVEN FASTER than the computer model had predicted!

  58. >>What is most interesting in the US is the decline of support despite a media blackout (for the most part). The online media has been rather effective in moving the terms of the debate.

    I think people are considering this in the wrong light. If you accept the premise that AGW is an entirely concocted scheme created for political gain, which I always have, rather than a natural event, then what was required to make it an issue was a compliant media that bought it hook, line and sinker. Indeed, many such as GE/NBC where both the largest cheerleaders and potentially one of the biggest beneficiaries. There was simply no way the public was going to buy this farcical nonsense without “voices of authority” beating it into their heads on a daily basis.

    What was needed to drive this scam down in importance by the public was not so much an aggressive media expose but rather for the media just to stop trying to scare the hell out of people. While it is a ton of fun for some of us who have been raging against this nonsense for year to watch it die a slow and painful death, the population as a whole has already put this issue where it rightfully belongs, at the bottom of their list of issues. No media help required.

  59. “The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human-caused and a serious threat to communities across America,” said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue.”

    It should be and it is. I am doing everything I can to educate people about Global Warming and to do research for themselves. What you do not appreciate, Edward, is that once people do, they stop believing it, just as I and millions of others did.

    Thanks for the encouragement, though, consider it taken to heart!

  60. Chris H (15:06:27) :

    I disagree. I would bet that the concentration of CO2 in your blood has to be higher than that of oxygen if you put a plastic bag on your head and seal it. Once all the oxygen is consumed, the hemoglobin is only combined with CO2… what else? I would argue that you actually die from the lack of removing the CO2 from your blood.

  61. I suggest that Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University wander across campus and have lunch with his faculty colleague at GMU Edward Wegman. Google edward J. wegman and read his report to the House Science and Energy Subcommittee to see the job that he and his ad hoc committee did of demolishing MBH’s statistics.

  62. More or less OT, but infuriating: Instead of going back to the Moon, and to Mars, guess what?

    NASA is going to study ‘climate change’!

    I am trying very hard to avoid four-letter words. . .

    Obama aims to ax moon mission

    NASA’s plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

    When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

    There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

    In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama’s long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new “heavy-lift” rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.

    In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible. . .

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story

    That SOB! (only three letters)

    /Mr Lynn

  63. Plato Says (15:12:21) :

    Just popping by – apols if this has been posted already.

    I’m LOL that this is the same Bob Ward that appeared saying this/

    Thanks for the link – that was very good!

    The funniest bit was after the end (of the second part) the next new item seemed to be a report on worsening employment conditions and more job losses.

    So let’s see what people are thinking:

    1. More taxes. Do I like that? Well, maybe not, but we really need to do something, don’t we?

    2. (a minute later) OMG I could lose my Job!

    Guess which one is more important…..

  64. RichieP (14:55:56) :

    I don’t suppose they will be overjoyed if, in 10 years 70% of the Alps is once again habitable, more of the trapped Ice Men are found dating from 10,000 years ago.
    On the other hand, who is to say that the decrease in warming will not itself accelerate into glacial advance?
    If current slopes project into the future with ironclad certainty, there would never have been the Banking Crisis and Financial Meltdown.
    People instinctively pull back in markets just prior to adverse climactic change. This one was no different.

  65. It appears that the technical legend of run-away carbon-dioxide global warming climathology (clime-mythology) still has many ardent believers.

  66. MrLynn (16:22:12) :

    The only part I would vouch for is restoring the 5,000 something rural stations they bulldozed. But not a penny to those agencies who ripped them out.

  67. Sören (12:02:36) :

    “Great, but this is also the nation which allegedly hardly believes in evulution. How do we know it’s not kidding this time too?”

    Because not believing in evolution doesn’t need to influence the study of life, earth, physical or any other science?

  68. RichieP wrote: “I’m afraid I’m not so sure, though there’s undoubtedly plenty of room for optimism at the moment. I have several highly intelligent, long-term friends……..

    I have the same kinds of friends. I’ve observed something about them:

    I submit that we ARE what we read.

    Readers who love history books understand these ideas: pietas, fides, gravitas, dignitas, constantia. (These virtues were interwoven into the Roman education system.) Some people still read these ideas: Forgotten Gems http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=60&Itemid=262

    Readers who love science fiction understand utopian ideas. (These are the ideas interwoven into our current culture, allowing many to fancy that we really can replicate heaven here on earth.)

    See “Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction” by Mark Bould
    Product Description: Science fiction and socialism have always had a close relationship. Many science fiction novelists and filmmakers have used the genre to examine explicit or implicit Marxist concerns.

    So when folks scoff that this isn’t about religion – well – it is, in a way. I would venture a guess that a considerable percent of the believers are firmly convinced that the human spirit does not exist; and that reducing human population is no more than a reasonable and logical solution.

  69. Mr Lynn – that was an upsetting revelation. On top of an earlier front-page article in Nature describing this:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091223/full/462978a.html

    *******[Steven] Chu plans to tackle climate change by reviving the scientific and technological urgency of the Manhattan Project — enlisting some of the nation’s best minds to find a way to power the world without ruining it. His plans start at home, where he is trying to push the ponderous DOE to support riskier research that could yield huge dividends.

    With a budget of US$27 billion, the department runs 17 national laboratories, oversees America’s nuclear stockpile and manages the environmental clean-up after the early nuclear age. It is the largest source of funds for physical-science research in the United States, and this year Chu had a much bigger pot to dole out. Just one month into his tenure, Congress gave the agency $37 billion in economic stimulus money — funds that Chu is steering towards renewable energy, nuclear power, carbon-sequestration pilot plants and projects to modernize the electric grid, all of which should help to solve the climate problem. “They say that necessity is the mother of invention and this is the mother of all necessities,” he says. “So we’re going to get the mother of all inventions. And it’s not going to be just one, it has to be many.”******

    I am incredulous that we are still committed to carbon-sequestration.

  70. “The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue.”

    Edward, you have it all backwards – the erosion in support has been caused because people are finally getting educated on the subject, not the other way around.

  71. stun (11:44:58) :
    “outreach climate change diversity officers”

    Stun, better inform the Unemployment Benefits Office that the “unemployable” numbers are about to go through the roof!

  72. Chu plans to tackle climate change by reviving the scientific and technological urgency of the Manhattan Project — enlisting some of the nation’s best minds to find a way to power the world without ruining it. His plans start at home, where he is trying to push the ponderous DOE to support riskier research that could yield huge dividends.

    ITER has hit a big snag. Insiders know it will never lead to an economical power plant. And even if it is economical it will be too big. It is undergoing review now. I would bet that it gets the ax. Below link discusses the economics of ITER.

    http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2007/07/fusion-symposia.html

    I like small Fusion. FRC – with Paul Allen Behind it. George Miley’s work at U Illinois. Focus Fusion – yeah, Lerner is nuts but he might be on to something. And of course my favorite Polywell Fusion.

    Bussard’s IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained

    And the best part? We Will Know In Two Years

    BTW Chu talked to Bussard about Polywell before Bussard died.

    http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/12/incoming-energy-secretary-on-bussard.html

    Oh yeah. If Polywell works it will make space travel really cheap.

    A sop to the Greenies (climate) to get our fusion program on the right track might not be a bad trade off. Don’t forget that out of the $3/4 trillion stimulus about $8 million (with a $4 million kicker) went to Polywell. If it works it could be worth tens of trillions.

    The thing is – a political pay off in terms of more research is vastly preferable to carbon taxes.

  73. kadaka, John Whitman and Kate. Interesting (and – oh, almost wrote – believable :-) ), i.e., belief wording opens up for spurious results little to do with anyones scientific judgment. Hm, need to think about what it might imply in connection with other results, like oftentimes in Europe. Thanks – spirits high!

  74. Henry chance (11:38:48) :

    It will officially be over when Ruddles gives up.

    It will officially be over when Penny Wong gets a new job and her ministry is closed down and the public servents are re-assigned or made redundant.

  75. The phrase “settled science” wasn’t heard during
    President Obama’s State of the Union Address this evening.

    There was a spoken reference , “… there are those who doubt
    the science.” in a short bit about climate change.

    However, the climate change thought was used as a
    shoehorn to encourage jobs creation through “green” or
    “clean” or even “more energy efficient” products or methods.

    Those of us in Ohio, as well as in West Virginia, Pennsylvania,
    Kentucky, and Wyoming can take hope in the resurfacing of
    the “clean coal” concept which was a part of Mr. Obama’s
    Presidential campaign pledges last year.

    Other than riggers and drillers along the coasts, I’m not
    sure what “little guy” voters will benefit directly from
    opening more of the continental shelves to oil exploration
    and extraction.

    Many listeners such as myself aren’t all that thrilled with
    more nuclear plants… since the bill that comes in the mail
    from such energy providers includes the costs for building,
    operating, and the safe demolition of the very radioactive
    physical plants leftovers. If there’s an “accident” by law
    the utility company’s liability can’t exceed $250,000.00
    dollars. (There’s some discussion as to whether that was
    supposed per individual or in toto.)

    So… many folks here have been promoted to “doubters”
    from their previous positions of “skeptics” or “deniers”
    or “criminals”.

  76. Neo (12:32:26) :

    I hope I’m not alone, but I keep getting a feeling that the whole AGW schtick is a “happy face” painted on an otherwise unhappy scenario. Sure, fossil fuels will run out one day, global oil production will (or has) peak(ed), and we are sending bucket loads of cash overseas to countries that don’t like us, but if this is the underlying story why can’t policymakers be square with us ?

    Higgins: It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then? Joe Turner: Ask them? Higgins: Not now – then! Ask ‘em when they’re running out. Ask ‘em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ‘em when their engines stop. Ask ‘em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ‘em. They’ll just want us to get it for ‘em!

    Did the 1975 film, “Three Days of the Condor” so scare policymakers that they believe that they can’t level with the American people, or is it that their current strategy requires fooling the current OPEC countries until they exhaust their supplies ? The latter would explain the failure to develop domestic oil sources and concentrate on “renewables” like bio-fuels, that are carbon based and would add to AGW sources (an AGW paradox).
    Or is this all merely a plot by politicians to raise taxes out of thin air ?

    You are assuming some sort of rational (if immoral) motivation behind the lies – that assumption may well be unfounded.

  77. kadaka (15:25:24) :

    @ Chris H (15:06:27) :

    CO2 is still dangerous. See the MSDS:

    Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes.

    Thus you can clearly see the need for extreme global vigilance with constant monitoring and strict controls, as we must ensure we never go above 20,000 ppm to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences. 10,000 ppm to stay on the safe side.

    Well that just blows it… I was planning to set up a company to mine the various outer planets for hydrocarbons such as methane, bring it back to Earth in big tanker-ships and burn it here… now it’s just not going to happen…

  78. Since water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas, and boiling water causes water vapor, and people boil water to make tea, why not just tax the tea and use the to fund research into instant ice tea.

    It would do a lot to reduce the worst greenhouse gas and putting a tax on tea has always worked in the past, hasn’t it?

  79. Re: Kate (17:30:08):

    I don’t think the extreme ideologues like Chu and Holder and Jackson are ever going to change their minds and stop pushing radical government schemes under the aegis of “fighting climate change.”

    The only way to stop them is to get this administration out of office. Short of impeachment, that can’t happen until 2012. Notice that in his interminable speech tonight, Obambi revived the ‘climate’ nonsense and Crap and Tax, which we thought was dead. But if the Republicans and energy-state Democrats can hold off that monstrosity until November, maybe we can elect enough conservatives to stop this administration from insanities like ‘carbon sequestration’.

    /Mr Lynn

  80. Loved the republican spin on the State of the Union address. They complain that the promises are just filled with hot air. Are you kidding me? They are complaining because he hasn’t fulfilled his promises??? I don’t want those promises kept! No! Nyet! Nada! Thanks anyway! Not complaining here! I’ll take my coffee plain! No icing on the cake! Just meat and potatoes! Stop complaining and just sneak out the back door. If we all just shut up ’bout the promises they will stay not met! Made me want to slap some sense into those conservative talking heads.

  81. Frequently Asked Question 4.1
    Is the Amount of Snow and Ice on the Earth Decreasing?

    Yes. Observations show a global-scale decline of snow and
    ice over many years, especially since 1980 and increasing dur-
    ing the past decade, despite growth in some places and little
    change in others (Figure 1).

    IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
    Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    Following the IPCC report, a deep and prolonged winter arrived in London (marked by the earliest snowfall in 70 years), the Alps received the “heaviest snowfalls in a generation” (contrary to “expert” predictions that there would be virtually none in future), snow fell in Baghdad for the first time on record, 100s of snowfall records were broken in the U.S., hundreds of Peruvian children froze to death, summer arrived late and cloudy to the U.K (prompting British media to cancel the barbecue and promote vitamin D supplements), Arctic ice extent rebounded dramatically, then another bitter winter arrived early in the northern hemisphere, freezing more people to death than the preceding one.

    Huge discrepancies between warming model predictions and the real-world climate have likely caused more than a few people, including myself, to chill out!

  82. Tom G(ologist) (12:24:57) :

    So true! What I fear, and I tried warning such sanctimonious bloggers as PG mYers about several years ago, is that by linking evolution deniers to climate ‘deniers’ they are setting themselves up for a fall when the climate house of cards collapses. I have been composing my not too arrogant “I warned you” e-mail to send him as soon as I feel our momentum is irrevocable and I see the first links from the Discovery Institute stating that scientists as a class can’t be trusted and evolution is just more fabricated nonsense.

    That thought has occurred to me several times. Carrying on in that vein to the next step: President Palin will provide funding to ensure that every American campus gets an Adam, Eve & Dinosaur theme park. (They deserve it.) We can stop laughing in a century or two.

    RichieP (14:55:56) :

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100023947/its-official-glaciers-are-disappearing/

    “Just as you may have thought it was safe to go back onto the glaciers, two new reports have come out to say that they are melting rapidly after all, indicating that many will disappear within decades.”

    Quite stunning in the circumstances. Cites a Prof Wilfried Haeberli. The comments are fun though.

    Did they account for the impact of soot? Here’s the funniest comment:

    I’ve heard that by 2035, or possibly 2350, there will be no polar bears in the Himalayas.

  83. Tom G(ologist) wrote:

    “What I fear, and I tried warning such sanctimonious bloggers as PG mYers about several years ago, is that by linking evolution deniers to climate ‘deniers’ they are setting themselves up for a fall when the climate house of cards collapses.”

    I agree that the two groups are not synonymous. There is probably considerable overlap as, by definition, skeptical individuals are more likely to be skeptical of all forms of consensus science, but there is definitely not an equivalence — plenty of evolution supporters skeptical about climate science and vice versa.

    BTW, kind of funny to see the old “denier” term applied to skeptics/realists. As you know from the climate debate, using the term “denier” is a standard ploy of those who follow consensus “science.” Time to break out the ol’ mirror and have a look! :)

  84. mtnrat (12:39:11) wrote:

    “That study was conducted Dec 24 2009 to Jan 3 2010. I would hazard a guess that there is now a greater decline and growing”

    Yes, but given the orientation/bias of the survey’s sponsor, my guess is they’ll try to find some way to … uh … hide the decline.

  85. Thought you guys might like this shit from Senator Kerry:

    Senator John Kerry (D. – Massachusetts) called on climate and clean energy legislation backers to become more aggressive in their efforts. ”If the Tea Party folks can go out there and get angry because they think their taxes are too high […] a lot of citizens ought to get angry about the fact that they’re being killed and our planet is being injured by what’s happening […] by the way we provide our power,” said Kerry.

  86. Obama has taken a hit in the polls, esp from the areas of American society which swept him into power (As far as I can tell – Heck, where are the jobs? In Michelle’s garden kitchen?).

    I don’t know much about American politics however, I now know he is cut from the same cloth as the bankers, on Wall St etc, who created the latest financial crisis.

    So on one hand, he authorises the “banking welfare” taxpayer funded bailout but then condems the “banker bonuses”. He’s from the same stable as the bankers.

    Who bankrolls Obama, Wall St?

  87. I would not be surprised to find that most of the public who have seen power-plants with smokestacks spewing thick clouds of billowing white smoke (that always seem to be shown on news stories about greenhouse gases, carbon-dioxide, and global warming) automatically assume that smoke to be ‘poisonous’ carbon-dioxide smog pollution befouling the planet when in fact it is primarily condensing water vapor.

  88. K~Bob (13:55:57) :

    Hey folks! Sorry for the off-topic, but I’m hoping someone can help me find the article here that discusses the mathematical problems with alternative energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. I remember it took a look at the actual idealized output of all major proposed alternative sources. For the life of me I can’t seem to put the right search terms together to find it.

    Thanks for any help you can give me!

    There is this one

    http://www.clepair.net/windsecret.html

  89. So true! What I fear, and I tried warning such sanctimonious bloggers as PG mYers about several years ago, is that by linking evolution deniers to climate ‘deniers’ they are setting themselves up for a fall when the climate house of cards collapses. I have been composing my not too arrogant “I warned you” e-mail to send him as soon as I feel our momentum is irrevocable and I see the first links from the Discovery Institute stating that scientists as a class can’t be trusted and evolution is just more fabricated nonsense.

    In the Promotion of Polywell research I advised proponents to avoid linking it with CAGW for that very reason. For the most part I was successful.

    What I did promote was that in 100 or 1,000 years we are going to need new sources of energy and that without low cost storage wind and solar are not going to cut it.

  90. I believe the replacement of fossil fuels is not so much a matter of mathematics as it is a matter of consequences. Once these fuels are exhausted, we will have only two choices, solar power or nuclear power. With nuclear power, the primary issue or challenge will be finding a safe method for continuously sequestering waste products that may remain radioactive for well over a hundred thousand years.

    I note that one of the CRU emails attempts to justify going ahead with the project even if the science is wrong because the same measures will be required to manage the dwindling availability of fossil fuels. I do not think it makes any moral sense to invent a false crisis to scare the public into doing what you think is a correct action.

  91. Pamela Gray (21:00:24) :

    Loved the republican spin on the State of the Union address. They complain that the promises are just filled with hot air. Are you kidding me? They are complaining because he hasn’t fulfilled his promises??? I don’t want those promises kept! No! Nyet! Nada! . . .

    I agree. I don’t want Obambi to fulfill any of his promises, made or implied, especially any having to do with ‘climate change’.

    “That government is best which governs least”—Henry David Thoreau

    /Mr Lynn

  92. At levels above 5% (50,000 ppm) CO2 is toxic. The current official measurement is ~380ppm.

    Thus you can clearly see the need for extreme global vigilance with constant monitoring and strict controls, as we must ensure we never go above 20,000 ppm to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences. 10,000 ppm to stay on the safe side.

    *Snicker* Since the best estimate of CO2 during the Cambrian peaks at 7,000 ppm, and that’s twenty times the current level, the “strict controls” are totally unnecessary.

  93. Finally, Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening decreased 13 points, to 34 percent, while 40 percent of the public now believes there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening or not.

    Looks like the “consensus about there being a consensus” is taking a big hit. But the poll was probably somewhat weighted against interviewing only those delivering the MSM “news”.

  94. ” I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are [sic] the right thing to do for our future…” President Obama

    His advisers have not been honest with him. While providing incentives for energy INDEPENDENCE will produce jobs, security, cleaner air, etc. – painting with the climate change brush is no longer viable. Not only because the science is flimsy, but further association with climate change will lead to embarrassing if not criminal connections.

    It’s a little like saying “I know some of you don’t believe that organized crime has benefits – but it’s the best way to go.”

  95. kwik (12:32:03) :

    No, I got it!
    -Plant Food Information Agency ! PFIA</em?

    I like Plant Food Understanding Institution! PFUI

  96. RichieP (12:23:11) :

    “….I’m afraid I’m not so sure, though there’s undoubtedly plenty of room for optimism at the moment. I have several highly intelligent, long-term friends, who from time to time I try to cajole to become more sceptical about AGW. It’s a deeply demoralising experience most of the time….”

    RichieP, Tell your friends Global warming propaganda is a CIA plot! The ultra rich are transferring the wealth, factories and industry of the USA, EU and Canada to the south because we are at the end of this interglacial and they are preparing for the coming Ice age. Global warming and Cap and trade are diversionary tactics to prevent the unwashed masses from having the money, means or motivation to migrate to the tropics.

    Media propaganda about “Global Warming” started in the seventies after the 1974 CIA report. The report stated interglacial periods last ” 10,000 to 12,500 years” and “never extend beyond 12,500 years…climate change at the end of these interglacial time periods is rather sharp and dramatic…Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate the northern regions such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union and Major areas of northern China will again be covered with 100 to200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the next 2,500 years they are quite positive, that it will occur sooner is open to speculation.”
    http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

    This is recognized by both sides of the Global Warming question:
    Validation of Milankovitch theory of Ice Ages:http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html

    Research by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution shows the transition ti and Ice Age can occur within ten years. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046

    An interesting graph superimposing all the Volstok interglacials including the current interglacial can be seen at this blog : http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2008/04/20/worlds-oldest-tree-discovered/

    I do not think this is actually true but It might get them interested in reading something besides Al Gore’s tall tales. An Ice Age Cometh, the only question is how soon that fact has been completely over looked thanks to the AGW hysteria.

  97. It’s a little like saying “I know some of you don’t believe that organized crime has benefits – but it’s the best way to go.”

    You might like to employ, somewhere, the mocking phrase, “organized clime.”

  98. K~Bob (13:55:57) :

    I found this about the economics:
    The problem is that Copenhagen is so highly orchestrated that any such inconvenient information will be buried: such as a recent report, Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energies: the German Experience. This thorough study of German electricity production found that its promotion of renewable energy is “a tale of a massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits”.
    The total cost of German subsidies for wind power, which produces 6.8 per cent of the nation’s electricity, is estimated at 20.5 billion euros between 2000 and 2010. But that is peanuts compared to solar power, which will have swallowed 53.3 billion euros while producing only 0.6 per cent of Germany’s power. Colossal amounts have been wasted, without much benefit to the environment or the country’s energy security.
    The real “elephant at the summit”, however, is population growth. …………. And if this problem is not confronted, all those hours spent agonising over reducing greenhouse gases and setting carbon emission levels will have been superfluous.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6781985/Copenhagen-climate-conference-Who-will-dare-mention-population-growth.html

  99. Could you check into this poll? To wit, from the poll:

    Q50. Assuming global warming is happening, do you think it is…
    2010 2008
    Caused mostly by human activities 47 57
    Caused mostly by natural changes in the environment 36 33
    None of the above because global warming isn’t happening 9 3
    Caused by both human activities and natural changes (volunteered) 6 5
    Other 1 1
    Don’t know (volunteered) 1 1.)

    But Rasmussen disagrees:

    Its Jan. 2010 poll survey respondents say global warming is: 37% man-made; 50% planetary trends (natural variability).

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update

    The two survey questions are nearly identical, both surveys of US adults, Rasmussen using likely voters. To have to diametrically opposed results from basically the same question for two contemporaneous polls seems highly, highly unlikely.

    Either Rasmussen is wrong, or George Mason is wrong. It’s as simple as that.
    The two surveys are largely contemporaneous, both appear US-adult based. They cannot both be right, even allowing for all the statistical variation one might want.

Comments are closed.