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
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
With “Global Cooling” having been on the agenda for the Bilderberg group’s last conference, reported by James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph Sept 2010 :-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/
May make the Global Warming argument in Cancun Mexico, a bit ‘old hat’.
JT
@sharper00 November 14, 2010 at 8:37 am
“Internet polls are entirely worthless.”
This one too, sharper00?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/
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.
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!!!!!
😉
The deafening silence from the Corporate MSM green propaganda machine regarding Cancun is very strange. What going down ?
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!
” 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
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….
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.
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.
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 . . . 🙂
Sun Spot said on November 14, 2010 at 7:19 pm:
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!”
☺
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.
Nick says:
November 14, 2010 at 8:53 am
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”.
Don’t tell me you’ve syolen “The Scream”, too.
@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??
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
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.
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”.