Investors Business Daily: A New Consensus

IBD picks up on the SciAm poll WUWT covered here.

Global Warming: Wouldn’t the followers of Scientific American have a pretty good understanding of what’s really going on with the climate? If a reader poll is any indication, they’re skeptical man is heating the planet.

For years we’ve heard that scientists have reached a “consensus” that the earth is warming due to a greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide emissions resulting from man’s use of fossil fuels. No use in discussing it further, Al Gore and others have said. It’s happening.

Not every reader of Scientific American magazine is a scientist. But the responses of the 7,000 readers (6,767 as of Friday morning) who’ve taken the magazine’s online poll strongly suggest that claims of a consensus are, at best, an exaggeration.

More than three-fourths (77.7%) say natural processes are causing climate change and almost a third (31.9%) blame solar variation. Only 26.6% believe man is the cause. (The percentages exceed 100 because respondents were allowed to choose more than one cause on this question.)

Whether climate change is man-caused or natural, most respondents don’t believe there’s anything that can be done about it anyway. Nearly seven in 10 (69.2%) agree “we are powerless to stop it.” A mere one in four (25.7%) recommend switching “to carbon-free energy sources as much as possible and adapt to changes already under way.”

It seems even some of those who would endorse changing energy sources don’t believe the benefits are worth the costs (which indicates they aren’t taking the alarmists’ claims seriously). Almost eight in 10 (79.4%) answer “nothing” to the question: “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?”

A small but apparently hard-core 12.3% say they’d be OK with spending “whatever it takes.” Only 4.9% choose “a doubling of gasoline prices” while 3.4% don’t mind paying “a 50% increase in electricity bills.”

That small, but hard, core likely makes up most of the 15.7% who think “the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts.” These holdouts are overwhelmed, though, by the 83.6% who agree the IPCC “is a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.”

This isn’t what we expected from the readers of a magazine that Cato’s Patrick Michaels says “has been shilling for the climate apocalypse for years.” Yet we’re not shocked. A new consensus is emerging as the unraveling of the global warming tale picks up speed.

See editorial at IBD here

Advertisements

81 thoughts on “Investors Business Daily: A New Consensus

  1. “who’ve taken the magazine’s online poll
    Really that’s the only part you have to read. Internet polls are entirely worthless.
    Bonus points though since WUWT posted a link to the poll and then later posts a link to an article about the poll. Now the people who themselves voted on it can comment and say the result shows their opinion is gaining momentum!

  2. Might be interesting to take into account that the poll doesn’t reflect the significant number of people who intentionally dropped their SciAm subscriptions or stopped reading it as a direct result of their skewed reporting and bias on climate, and their clear AGW alarmism.
    I’d wager the numbers would be far worse for the warmistas if former readers (such as me) had been included.

  3. It would be most interesting to place your face Anthony face to face together with mr Pachauris face and ask the public who is the good guy . I bet you your score would leave the negative score of the IPCC in this poll in the dust .

  4. sharperoo wrote: “Bonus points though since WUWT posted a link to the poll and then later posts a link to an article about the poll. Now the people who themselves voted on it can comment and say the result shows their opinion is gaining momentum!”
    ——————————————-
    ALL polls, not just internet polls, show that” their opinion is gaining momentum.” And that is because it is. The more people find out about the “consensus science,” the less inclined they are to find it persuasive.

  5. Science is not governed with a poll on a website. The “consensus” you hear refers to published literature, the examined evidence, rather than some vote within the scientific community.
    “Not every reader of Scientific American magazine is a scientist.” I would agree, in fact I know of very few scientists who actually read it. They prefer journals, as SA is more appropriate for interested people outside of the discipline.
    Of course, this poll was open to anyone – people reaching it through a link on blogs, actual readers, etc. Surely you understand this. Polling Americans reveals that nearly half outright reject evolution – is this evidence that the consensus of science with respect to evolution is in doubt? No, because the body of research in the literature overwhelmingly illustrates the veracity of evolutionary theory.
    “almost a third (31.9%) blame solar variation.”
    So almost a third have obviously bollocks understandings of the climatology. Blaming the sun requires that our measurements of TSI are incorrect, that it is increasing rapidly in the past century rather than cycling with the sunspot cycle, and apparently that CO2 does not induce any radiative forcing. Does this sound like a person with any grasp of basic radiation physics and the actual data, or someone basing their beliefs on soundbytes?
    “These holdouts are overwhelmed, though, by the 83.6% who agree the IPCC “is a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.””
    This illustrates one of two things – that these people believe the IPCC actually does research, rather than summarize it, and thus dismiss literature because they think that the IPCC wrote it, OR, they understand what the IPCC does, but think it misrepresents the literature. The latter would be somewhat correct, because many scientists feel they understate the literature (ie, only including thermal expansion in projections of sea level rise). Of course, this isn’t what they are thinking – they imagine, I suppose, that this is some sort of New World Order group trying to take over.

  6. I’ll keep my dollars for adaptation, which has a million times better odds of survival than handing over my paycheck to King Gore and the Carbon Exchange.

  7. In all fairness, I was able to vote in the poll and I’m not a Scientific American subscriber. I voted because I read about the poll in WUWT. I contributed to the skeptical results. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
    It’s fun and entertaining when we skeptics can affect a poll when its creators expect a very different result such as here or in the British Museum poll earlier this year. And it’s embarrassing for the poll creators. But does it really mean anything or reflect reality? No.

  8. Well yes, but if you normalize and smooth the data correcting for urban retreat islands, mainstream media disinformation and funding biases, you clearly see the strong and unquestionable consensus supporting catastrophic anthropogenic CO2-driven climate disruption reemerge. (Trust me on this…)

  9. For Sharperoo:
    Even though it was an online poll and therefore subject to gaming, it appears that more skeptics gamed it than believers. Gotta wonder why that happened, eh?

  10. Watch the MSM. They are the co-informers of what they want the consensus to be. The other co-informers of what the consensus will be are the ideologists that shape the curricula in social activism at the ‘progressive’ schools of journalism.
    Follow the money ideas.
    John

  11. The “correct” interpretation (spin) of these results is that it shows a need for a massive “education” and media campaign to “enlighten” the obviously ignorant peasants of their fate should they continue to reject the righteous conclusions of the Environmental Illuminati. (sarcoff)

  12. @Doug in Seattle
    “it appears that more skeptics gamed it than believers. Gotta wonder why that happened, eh?”
    Your question sounds like it’s rhetorical but I have no idea what the answer is supposed to be. Assuming your gaming premise, why did that happen and how does the superior “poll gaming” ability of skeptics reflect well upon them?

  13. So let me get this straight, scientific knowledge is only viable if it has been ‘published’ somewhere?
    I wonder what we did before magazines like Science and Nature and all those pompous journals came along? Of course it also leads us to the idea that only ‘real’ scientists can debate and decide on ‘scientific’ concepts. The use of peer review and journals is supposed to aid in the communication and dissemination of ideas not restrict and censor them
    No wonder the public are now view science on the same parity as politics and religion.
    About time some folk removed their heads from their nether regions and stopped being so elitist.

  14. I guess thats “bollocks” and not “bullocks”, but the spelling on the latter somehow seems more appropriate.

  15. sharper00 says:
    November 14, 2010 at 9:33 am

    @Doug in Seattle
    “it appears that more skeptics gamed it than believers. Gotta wonder why that happened, eh?”

    Your question sounds like it’s rhetorical but I have no idea what the answer is supposed to be. Assuming your gaming premise, why did that happen and how does the superior “poll gaming” ability of skeptics reflect well upon them?
    —————————
    sharper00,
    The so-called skeptics appear more highly mobile, motivated and active than the so-called consensus of late.
    Conclude what one will , it looks like politicians and MSM sense it. It looks like the bulk of science is starting to sense it. Clearly the people paying for it (lowly, lowly taxpayers) have long since sensed it.
    The next step is for new leadership to emerge to represent the reformed/ renaissance of climate science. I don’t think we will recycle any of the current ‘consensus/settled’ science leadership of the past 20+ years. New blood with new ideas! Wonderful.
    John

  16. There is a lot of material for making jokes and cartoons in Global Warming/Clima Change/Climate disruption, etc.,etc.
    It has been the most creative era, in human´s history, for the biggest collection of foolishness, stupidity, silliness, in favor of such a weird piece of pseudo science.
    It has broken all records!!.
    We really wonder How in the world could somebody imagine a more silly argument?
    Who was the creator of such a JOKE?; if they planned it to achieve GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, what they got, instead was a GLOBALIZED JOKE:
    You name it: From painting roofs with white paint to whatever….
    Is there ANYBODY, not being a wide spectrum and full proof FOOL, to believe ANY of these super-silly arguments, without peeing from laughing?
    I guess they don´t realize it…..

  17. The people who read Sci.Amer. are not the people who read the National Enquirer. I dare say that it’s readership is amongst the better educated portion of the population. This seems to go against the common assertion that the better educated people support the claim of CAGW.
    It seems, by this poll, thinking, open minded, educated people have rejected all aspects of CAGW. It seems ideological agenda is required, to enable the many, supporters, of the hypothesis, of CO2 induced CAGW. But then, most of us, already knew that!
    This must be a very depressing time, for those, whose main goal is to save the world from the ignorant masses, which are the cause, of all climate and woes. The only comfort, I can offer them, is that “consensus” is irrelevant to science. GK

  18. Nick says:
    “Science is not governed with a poll on a website. The “consensus” you hear refers to published literature, the examined evidence, rather than some vote within the scientific community.”
    I agree with Nick, science is not governed by a poll on a website, particularly one which permits non-scientists like myself to vote. It does, hoever, show that those who take an interest in science and “climate change” – two almost totally different subjects, since the latter has now become a religion – are not convinced by the AGW agenda.
    The trouble is that “published literature” is dependant on the fashion of the day. Go back forty or fifty years and much published literature was predicting the possibility of a new ice age rather than global warming. As testified by numerous blogs, it is very hard for those scientists swimming against the tide to have their work published, except on websites such as WUWT.
    The other problem is that much of the”the examined evidence” is dubious. There has still been no convincing explanation by climatologists as to why their favoured tree ring, ice core and lake sediment data are belied by contemporaneous historical records as to the existence of medieval warming and little ice age. Until the proxies match the historic observations the “examined evidence” on which the climate models have been based will remain suspect.

  19. One Example of Many – At the end of the 19th Century the American Press started a War with Spain, very little of the “information” pressed upon the American people was true. They like to do this about every hundred years. Seems to have something to do with the variation in the Solar Cycle.

  20. Sharperoo: allow me to penetrate your obtuseness: more skeptics gamed it because there is now more fervor against the theory of AGW than for it. That is a new development in the past two years or so. The fervor was once primarily on the side of the true believers in AGW. Now it appears to be primarily on the side of the skeptics.
    It was only a matter of time, given the condition of the “consensus” science.

  21. Ooops missed out an ‘ing’ there. I just hope some tedious pedant doesn’t use it to discredit the idea, as we all know how much more important grammar and spelling are to some folk than concepts, sigh!

  22. Sharperoo:
    I think John and the Duke pretty nicely summarize the answer to my rhetorical question. Motivation.

  23. Pamela Gray says:
    November 14, 2010 at 9:59 am
    Now that editorial is worth another shot of Hot Toddy! Hey! I have a cold!

    —————–
    Pamela Gray,
    The sun is just over the yardarm here in NY, so perchance, you have authorization to proceed even though it may not be where you are . . . . cold or no cold. : )
    Enjoy, and recover soon.
    John

  24. All the skeptics who post here and who voted in the SA poll are getting big fat checks from the fossil fuel lobby for accomplishing the goal that was organized and executed by a crack team of deniers. In their underground base, the denier leaders plot the overthrow of the consensus. The deniers huge influence on the MSM and reality has clearly had an effect on public opinion …………… ooops,sorry…… I left the ACME sarcasm machine on again.

  25. Despite the fact that the poll was so bad, as a poll, that I refused to take it, and despite the fact that it was, no doubt, “gamed”, there was still an interesting result. The big winner was “yes, Climate Scientists should engage with skeptics”. Apparently, people who claim never to have heard of Judith Curry agree with her on this point. To me, “the debate is over” and “the science is settled” sound a lot like “lalala I can’t hear you”. Apparently, I’m not the only one. This seems good!
    Best,
    Frank

  26. I remember reading in a biography of John Kennedy that he told aides that he had learned not to worry about polls showing unexpected 10% support for weird or silly positions, saying something like, “in any poll there will always be 10% of support for even the strangest positions”.

  27. I hope the editors and designer of that ill designed and non-random poll are embarrassed that its results are getting attention in other press. I suspect that the readers of IBD are well aware that an Internet poll isn’t worth the paper its not printed on, but at least it suggests there are more skeptics out there than there are members of the Flat Earth Society.
    (Aside to Dave Ball – you got your check? Mine must be late, I’ll talk to Mr Big at the lobby about it, they must not have my address right.)

  28. Nick, Sharperoo,
    10
    I suppose you are suggesting that W. Connolly and others who have gamed Wicki for years on climatescience, even erasing parts of biographies, and the esteemed synod of CAGW bishops who blocked publication of skeptical papers, blackballed heretical journal editors, had some fired, even rejoiced at the death of a prominent skeptical climate scientist whose arguments and data were problematical to them – refrained from stuffing the ballot box? I’m sure you are honorable gentlemen but I hope you wouldn’t keep company with such as these. Check out all the other polls in the last 6-10 months – they tell you the same thing – It would seem you are in the 16% group.

  29. Nick makes a good point, that some believe the IPCC does research rather than just summarize it.
    Not sure I know the difference, if the IPCC takes the summaries, or properly, the results of the research, filters it, subjects it to censorship by people of its choosing who contort it to obtain a pre-determined product……..Then what is the difference?

  30. Triggered instinctive involuntary laughter:
    “the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts.”
    That ship has sunk.

  31. From an old text, the treatment of a cold: Hang your hat on a bedpost, get into bed, and drink from a bottle of good whiskey until you see two hats.
    ================

  32. Curiousgeorge says:
    November 14, 2010 at 9:29 am
    The “correct” interpretation (spin) of these results is that it shows a need for a massive “education” and media campaign to “enlighten” the obviously ignorant peasants of their fate should they continue to reject the righteous conclusions of the Environmental Illuminati. (sarcoff)

    Yes. Look out for CCDPs.
    Skeptical Science moving into solutions #23 Roger A. Wehage at 06:40 AM on 13 November, 2010
    Trying to educate the upper echelon is not working, so the only recourse may be to start at the bottom. Bring in Climate Change Denial Psychologists to learn how to sway the masses.

  33. An online poll that lets you vote more than once …..believable?
    REPLY: Only if you cheat by disabling cookies- A

  34. sharper00 says:
    November 14, 2010 at 8:37 am
    Bonus points though since WUWT posted a link to the poll and then later posts a link to an article about the poll. Now the people who themselves voted on it can comment and say the result shows their opinion is gaining momentum!

    yeah that’s the best we can do around here. we lack the trillions in funding from governments, NGOs, and the fossil fuel industry to generate an echo chamber of alarmist size…you know, the IPCC, entire University departments, AP, Reuters, the NYT and virtually every other media outlet.
    and for your edification don’t forget the actual SCAM article called the good Dr.Curry a denier and a heretic. for merely suggesting scientists do actual science.

  35. John M said on November 14, 2010 at 9:52 am:

    I guess thats “bollocks” and not “bullocks”, but the spelling on the latter somehow seems more appropriate.

    To help you on figuring out what spelling is appropriate, you could check with Sandra Bollock.

  36. I suspect the editors of SciAm would have trumpeted the outcome of their “unscientific” poll, had it gone their way. I used to subscribe to the mag back when it was filled with real science, not the dumbed-down fluff of today. Now I get my copies free from my barber, who wonders why it turns up in the mail unsolicited. Fallen are the mighty!!!

  37. >>John M says:
    November 14, 2010 at 9:50 am
    “97 percent agreeing humans play a role”
    Who (except Jonesy and his mates) wouldn’t agree that humans play “a role” in warming … via UHI ?
    The question was incorrectly phrased. It should have been “do you agree that man’s CO2 emissions are causing significant and dangerous global warming ?”

  38. The Scientific American has, unfortunately, become a misnomer.
    The magazine is now run by an elite editorial staff that openly practices the art of abusing scientific principle, twisting fact with fiction and propagandizing it as scientific gospel [I know what else is new].
    Sadly science has taken a back seat to sell an ever diminishing print publication that’s appears to be incapable of surviving the passing of paper as a major media…,
    How many pine for the glory days of Albert Ingalls and C.L. Stong?…,

  39. Nick,
    Science is not governed with a poll on a website. The “consensus” you hear refers to published literature, the examined evidence, rather than some vote within the scientific community.
    Nick, you’re taking this way to seriously. Of course we don’t think this means your side lost, but it is a little like watching you score on your own goal. This was a poll at a warmista site after all so don’t think the results were only because of WUWT.
    MikeEE

  40. Nick seems to be saying that it can’t be due to increased heat output from the sun. That’s the old straw man argument. The actual theory is that when the sun’s magnetic field is strong, when there are numerous sunspots, the magnetic field and solar wind causes less cosmic rays to reach the earth, causing a change in cloud cover, causing increased temperatures.
    By misrepresenting the argument to be that increased heat from the sun warmed the earth, Nick has erected a straw man that he can easily demolish, as there is nowhere near enough extra heat from the sun to explain the warming.
    Such tricks indicated advocacy, not a search for the truth. It would be better to examine the actual theory, rather than set up a false one to demolish.

  41. David Ball says:
    November 14, 2010 at 11:28 am
    ‘All the skeptics who post here and who voted in the SA poll are getting big fat checks from the fossil fuel lobby for accomplishing the goal that was organized and executed by a crack team of deniers. In their underground base, the denier leaders plot the overthrow of the consensus.’
    LMAO. Anthony has to be the one with the cat, as he has already confessed in another post. (Or is it really a meeting of the now defunct CCX.)

  42. As the Age of Aquarius “dawned” in the ’60s it was obvious that there were quite a few people whose connection to reality was, shall we say, somewhat impaired. That offspring from that group found their way into pseudo-science, and thence into computer modeled pseudo-science, shouldn’t surprise any of us.
    Pseudo-politics is just as vicious, or maybe more vicious. They continue to see Machiavellian conspiracies from “Big Oil”, or “The Man.” A little irrationality goes a long way.
    Happily, it’s fully possible for individuals to wake up and deprogram themselves. No, I don’t mean via cults – rather though careful reading of well written scientific texts, or in the case of politics – H. L. Mencken, Alfred Knock, Fritz Hayek.

  43. “yeah that’s the best we can do around here. we lack the trillions in funding from governments, NGOs, and the fossil fuel industry to generate an echo chamber of alarmist size…you know, the IPCC, entire University departments, AP, Reuters, the NYT and virtually every other media outlet.”
    Ah yes, the grand global conspiracy of scientists, universities, media outlets and governments. My experience of ideas which require such conspiracies is, to date, quite poor.
    “and for your edification don’t forget the actual SCAM article called the good Dr.Curry a denier and a heretic. for merely suggesting scientists do actual science.”
    It’s interesting that you placed special emphasis on the word “and” in “denier and a heretic” considering that neither the word “deny” or “denier” exists anywhere in the article. The word “heretic” exists only in the title. I don’t believe the article was literally calling her a heretic but you appear to have read significant details in it that don’t exist.

  44. sharper00 says:
    “who’ve taken the magazine’s online poll”
    Really that’s the only part you have to read. Internet polls are entirely worthless”
    And what sort of reliable poll was used to establish Gore’s consensus?
    The imaginary kind.

  45. Funny…
    Every news item that allows comments is completely SWAMPED with “skeptics”. Every online poll is completely one-sided toward “skeptics”. AGW promoters are financed HUGELY, where “skeptics” have no financing, only their own study.
    Warmist sites regularly block and censor any “skeptic” comments. “Skeptic” sites welcome debate, and rarely get anything more than some “you’re poopy heads” comments from the warmist side.
    At some point, even the die-hard warmist believers have to come to grips with the fact that their belief system is grounded in poor data and politically-driven propaganda.
    Correlation is not causation, no. But to prove causation you’d at least have to have SOME correlation. As we all know, there is more correlation between bigfoot sitings and global temperature than there is with CO2.
    I used to subscribe to SA, but gave up years ago when it ceased to be a Science magazine and became a pop magazine. Heck, didn’t they have Justin Beiber in the last issue?

  46. Exactly two weeks from now, thousands of climate bureaucrats and politicians from many governments and the UN will face each other in Cancun, and they will be faced with this rising skepticism of the public of their man-made warming religion. I expect another deadlock to institute global ecological central planning.

  47. Nonoy Oplas says:
    November 14, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Exactly two weeks from now, thousands of climate bureaucrats and politicians from many governments and the UN will face each other in Cancun, and they will be faced with this rising skepticism of the public of their man-made warming religion. I expect another deadlock to institute global ecological central planning.

    I heard a rumor that they had to scale back the menu for political and financial reasons. Seems they will be serving Spam and Crackers, w/humble pie for desert.

  48. If a poll finds for AGW then it is hailed as verification of the scientific consensus by the warmists.
    If it doesn’t, then it is junk. Same way as they view scientific papers or an other scientific opinion.
    Sad really.

  49. RE: For years we’ve heard that scientists have reached a “consensus” that the earth is warming due to a greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide emissions resulting from man’s use of fossil fuels.
    If you think about it, in the days of Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543), the “Scientific Consensus” was that the Earth was the center of the Universe. [b]The debate is over, the best scientists of the world at that time had identified the Earth at the center.[/b] The crackpot, Copernicus was way out of line and even died when he saw his book published!!!
    [quote]Copernicus died in Frauenburg (Frombork) on 24 May 1543. Legend has it that the first printed copy of De revolutionibus was placed in his hands on the very day that he died … [/quote]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
    Then another crazy came along, Galileo Galilei (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642), trying to push these outlandish ideas!!! The “Scientific Consensus” had already answered the question, this guy was WAY out in left field and clearly not to be believed!!!
    [quote]Galileo’s championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when [b]a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.[/b][/quote]
    It worth noting that Galileo did under pressure, recant.
    [quote]he was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[/quote]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
    So, there you have it, “Scientific Consensus” always comes to the truth and there’s no need for additional research or to question the decision!!!!!
    😉

  50. The deafening silence from the Corporate MSM green propaganda machine regarding Cancun is very strange. What going down ?

  51. That cloacal cavity and his friends at Columbia have absolutely corrupted one of the best semi- Scientific magazine for the general technically educated population, and inquisitive others.. It provided a view of progress in other fields, beyond the particular scientific concentration of one’s interest.
    Send him packing and restore the Scientific American magazine to genuine Science.
    After 40 years of subscription, I could no longer stand the constant pseudo-religious indoctrination that purported to be Science, when it was obvious it was at best ersatz science or pure political propaganda. It was a pure insult to my intelligence as a practicing Scientist and Engineer.
    I want my magazine back!

  52. ” they understand what the IPCC does, but think it misrepresents the literature.”
    Those who think that are right. The IPCC claims are rubbish. It was their chairman who told us all, “People can have confidence in the IPCC conclusions… Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature” _ Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008.
    The facts, on the other hand, are that of 18,513 references in the 2007 IPCC report 5,587 are not peer-reviewed; they include press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, student theses, working papers and advocacy literature put out by environmental groups.
    http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

  53. Nice to have a quiet smile at the antics of the AGW crowd as they go down the gurgler, and I’m still waiting for my big oil check. I think it got lost in the mail….

  54. Two weeks of above average weather ,for this time of year and none dare call it AWG/CC/GCD. The silence of our media is similar to their,behavior last year in not reporting on the CRU emails.So whats going on?Has the snorts of derision reached the advertising staff?It sounds a lot like panic to me. The perfect storm for the high priests, public disbelief, open hostility, and the US congress full of less loony people than a month ago and of course thanks to the useful idiots in our govts we are broke and can’t afford to pay our indulgences even at a nickel/ton. I wonder when its going to occur to the politicians supporting carbon taxes /co2 reduction that they have been engaging in treason? 2010 has been a great year so far, I hope the 19th brings another treat.

  55. I suspect that the round-the-clock advertising for the new Bjorn Lomborg film, “Cool it” is going to have a major impact on public opinion on this issue including his emphatic statement, “Global Warming is happening” and his strong attack on the hyperbolic nature of former vice-president Gore’s film.

  56. Nick wrote: “Polling Americans reveals that nearly half outright reject evolution – is this evidence that the consensus of science with respect to evolution is in doubt? No, because the body of research in the literature overwhelmingly illustrates the veracity of evolutionary theory.”
    Rrriiiiiiiiiight. Man, I love consensus science . . . 🙂

  57. Sun Spot said on November 14, 2010 at 7:19 pm:

    The deafening silence from the Corporate MSM green propaganda machine regarding Cancun is very strange. What going down ?

    Copenhagen was heavily billed as the make-or-break, now-or-never, final chance to get an international fix of the global warming problem, without a binding all-inclusive agreement the world was unequivocally heading towards civilization-destroying cataclysmic global catastrophes.
    It broke. It is never. The tragic terrors are approaching. Pachauri’s train has left the station. What can Cancun be, the first of a series of meetings about mitigating the damages and salvaging what they can after the coming Apocalypse?
    Besides, given the current economic conditions and political mood in the US and elsewhere, now is not a good time to highlight politicians, poverty-pledged dedicated activists, and corporate shills all mixing together amid luxurious surroundings in a vacation paradise, even if it is to, again, “Save The Earth!”

  58. RE: Nick: (November 14, 2010 at 8:53 am)
    “Science is not governed with a poll on a website. The “consensus” you hear refers to published literature, the examined evidence, rather than some vote within the scientific community. “
    I believe science should be governed by established evidence. Of course, government policies are not governed by scientific consensus or established evidence, but by the personal convictions of the individual law makers and those of the people who put them in office. For better or for worse, based on the current level of hype, I believe the film “Cool It” is going to have a noticeable impact on this.

  59. Nick says:
    November 14, 2010 at 8:53 am

    “This illustrates one of two things – that these people believe the IPCC actually does research, rather than summarize it, and thus dismiss literature because they think that the IPCC wrote it […]”

    Hmmm … interesting concept. AR4’s Working Group I, Chapter 10 (Global Climate Projections), for example, has a total of 545 references cited. Of these, 236 were to papers written (or co-written) by one of the Chapter 10 authors. A further 130 references were to papers written (or co-written) by authors of another IPCC Chapter.
    So, it would appear that to a not insignificant extent (regardless of what “people believe”) there is some empirical evidence which suggests that many who had an active role in the IPCC’s AR4 conducted the “research”, wrote the literature … and “summarized” it during the course of their “assessment”.

  60. @Nick says: November 14, 2010 at 8:53 am
    “….these people believe the IPCC actually does research, rather than summarize it, and thus dismiss literature because they think that the IPCC wrote it, OR, they understand what the IPCC does, but think it misrepresents the literature. ”
    Nice ‘either / or’ choice, Nick.
    Did you not consider that “these people” see and realise that the majority of “the literature” is tendentious, worthless, shroud waving tosh??

  61. The premise that readers of Scientific American were polled is wrong.
    The poll does not necessarily represent readers of Scientific American. Anyone can go online at their web site and take it.
    The idea that the people who took it are knowledgeable about climate science is wrong. Only 29,9 answered answered a question about the meaning of climate sensitivity correctly.
    6. What is “climate sensitivity”?
    Percent Response
    Count
    the degree to which global temperature responds to concentrations of greenhouse gases
    29.9% 2,067
    an unknown variable that climate scientists still do not understand
    56.3% 3,891
    the phrase on which the fate of human civilization hangs
    0.6% 42
    all of the above
    13.3% 917

  62. Just for the record I voted in the SA poll and I am an SA subscriber.
    SciAm is in trouble and they know it. The issue with the Judith Curry article was also the first issue of major format change (look and feel). People generally don’t try to fix things that aren’t broken.
    SciAm could go a long in improving the rag if they’d ditch the monthly columns by liberal butt-monkeys Michael Shermer and Steve Mirsky.

  63. sharper00 says:
    November 14, 2010 at 3:34 pm
    “Ah yes, the grand global conspiracy of scientists, universities, media outlets and governments. My experience of ideas which require such conspiracies is, to date, quite poor”

    Let me clarify this a little for you Mr. R00. After 20 years or so, the fashionable elite have abandoned the concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and moved on to other activist crusades for world justice. It seems that it just is not fun anymore when their side is losing. The only people left in the debate are the ones with genuine interest in the physics involved and a group of parasites wanting to make money.
    The haut monde are off debating taxes and the global economic disparages between rich and poor. The party has moved from the Ball Room to the back room. Everyone else is discussing “America’s Next Top Model”.

  64. eadler says:
    November 15, 2010 at 7:45 am

    The idea that the people who took it are knowledgeable about climate science is wrong. Only 29,9 answered answered a question about the meaning of climate sensitivity correctly.

    Nope, sorry. The correct answer was “all the above” which was selected by 13% including me. Climate sensitivity is the surface temperature response to a change in greenhouse gases, it’s a variable whose value is unknown, and the fate of the world hinges upon it.

  65. [SNIP – violation of site policy – wtf@fu.com is not a valid email address. the fu.com domain is in Arlington, VA and your comment originates at The University of Reading, UK., until you use a valid email address, all of your comments will be discarded – Anthony]

  66. Interesting is that now that SciAm published an uncharacteristically non-scientific opinion piece (about Judith Curry) which actually displays skeptics in a positive light, that WUWT readers start throwing mudd at the journal… What’s up with that ?
    Also interesting is that some of the respondents here (for example DJ Meredith and G.Karst) blindly accepted Anthony’s false assertion that this poll reflected the opinion of SciAm readers. Even after Nick pointed out that the poll was open to all internet users.
    I think that this misleading post, as well as the mudd-throwing from WUWT readers here and on other ‘skeptics’ blog sites are a strong indication that readers here may be driven more by group thinking and preconceived beliefs, and accepting Anthony’s messages without question, rather than engage in critical thinking by themselves.

  67. Rob,
    Obviously a non-scientifically conducted online poll where there is no control on the demographics of those queried doesn’t accurately reflect the true numbers. What it does show is that the grand noble cause of CAGW has lost its power (if it ever had it) to engage and mobilize the citizenry. If there were heaps of green true believer page views at Sci Am then the poll would have been overwhelming positive towards AGW.
    The skeptics are killing the true believers in the theatre of public opinion. We already know this from the page view statistics for climate related websites. Likewise, Cap ‘n Trade isn’t dead because Obama thinks it will help get him re-elected. Nor did the Chicago Carbon Exchange close because of market demand was so hot.
    We may also deduce that the skeptics are far more passionate than the CAGW true believers. Which is ironic, given that the CAGW true believers are suppose to be saving the planet from an apocalypse, while all most skeptics really want is climate science performed by proper scientific methods. Most skeptics came to the climate debate with open minds capable of changing with the hard evidence. There is really no single great histrionic crusade like saving the planet to unite or motivate the skeptics, just rational fidelity to honest science.
    As for the claim someone made that the consensus is in the peer-review journals not what the stupid hoi polloi believe. He conveniently omits that climategate exposed naughty climate scientists excluding papers from the literature that worked against the consensus. So the peer-reviewed consensus is as dubious as an online poll.
    Perhaps part of the unpopularity of the CAGW meme is due to the odious sense of moral superiority oily CAGW evangelists secrete where ever they go.

  68. Not true Rob!
    I believe I said polls are irrelevant to science.
    The only polls that affect climate, are the two poles of the planet. The rest is merely a high school popularity contest.
    If you have data indicating this poll was not SciAm reader participated, please post it! GK

  69. Wes George wrote :
    “…..climategate exposed naughty climate scientists excluding papers from the literature that worked against the consensus.”
    OK. Name a couple of papers that “naughty” scientists excluded from “the literature”.
    Just ONE paper for starters, so that we can analyse the science in there and check why it was not accepted.
    Regarding your assertions that ‘skeptics’ (I would say “media egos”) are winning the hearts and minds of the public, may I remind you that science is not a democracy.
    So show the “better” science that supposedly was suppressed “excluded” by these “naughty” scientists, and we may have a discussion.
    Remember that public opinion does not affect the outcome of this global experiment (of emitting a trillion ton of CO2 into this planet’s atmosphere).

Comments are closed.