The name game of climate change

The list of names for "global warming" floated in recent media, click image for the original story Image by: Anthony Watts

From the: University of Michigan

It’s all in a name: ‘Global warming’ vs. ‘climate change’

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Many Americans are skeptical about whether the world’s weather is changing, but apparently the degree of skepticism varies systematically depending on what that change is called.

According to a University of Michigan study published in the forthcoming issue of Public Opinion Quarterly, more people believe in “climate change” than in “global warming.”

“Wording matters,” said Jonathon Schuldt, the lead author of the article about the study and a doctoral candidate in the U-M Department of Psychology.

Schuldt co-authored the study with U-M psychologists Sara Konrath and Norbert Schwarz. For the research, they conducted a question wording experiment in the American Life Panel, an online survey conducted by RAND, with a national sample of 2,267 U.S. adults. Participants were asked to report their level of certainty about whether global climate change is a serious problem. In the following question, half the participants heard one version, half heard the other:

“You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up [changing] over the past 100 years, a phenomenon sometimes called ‘global warming’ [‘climate change’]. What is your personal opinion regarding whether or not this has been happening?

Overall, 74 percent of people thought the problem was real when it was referred to as climate change, while about 68 percent thought it was real when it was referred to as global warming.

These different levels of belief may stem from the different associations carried by the two terms, Schuldt said. “While global warming focuses attention on temperature increases, climate change focuses attention on more general changes,” he said. “Thus, an unusually cold day may increase doubts about global warming more so than about climate change. Given these different associations and the partisan nature of this issue, climate change believers and skeptics might be expected to vary in their use of these terms.”

As part of the study, the researchers also analyzed the use of these two terms on political think tank websites, finding that liberals and conservatives used different terms. Conservative think tanks tend to call the phenomenon global warming, while liberal think tanks call it climate change.

And when the researchers analyzed responses to the survey by political orientation, they found that the different overall levels in belief were driven almost entirely by participants who identified themselves as Republicans. While 60 percent of Republicans reported that they thought climate change was real, for example, only 44 percent said they believed in the reality of global warming.

In contrast, about 86 percent of Democrats thought climate change was a serious problem, no matter what it was called. Why weren’t they influenced by question wording? “It might be a ceiling effect, given their high level of belief,” Konrath said. “Or it could be that Democrats’ beliefs about global climate change might be more crystallized, and as a result, more protected from subtle manipulations.”

The good news is that Americans may not be as polarized on the issue as previously thought. “The extent of the partisan divide on this issue depends heavily on question wording,” said Schwarz, who is also affiliated with the U-M Ross Business School and the Institute of Social Research (ISR). “When the issue is framed as global warming, the partisan divide is nearly 42 percentage points. But when the frame is climate change, the partisan divide drops to about 26 percentage points.”

###

For a free reprint from the journal’s online depository: http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nfq073?ijkey=YcGpwzhzykOYkl7&keytype=ref

U-M Sustainability fosters a more sustainable world through collaborations across campus and beyond aimed at educating students, generating new knowledge, and minimizing our environmental footprint. Learn more at sustainability.umich.edu

===============================================================

From that reprint, the results in Table 2, proving once again that the people belive the climate has changed and will continue to do so. It is a rather obvious result. – Anthony

Table 2 from the paper - click to enlarge

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John Marshall

These people should do some real research. It does not matter what you call it if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck. And Climates Change.

Otter

So the climate is changing. HOW is it a ‘problem’?

The good news is that Americans may not be as polarized on the issue as previously thought.

How much money did we pay for this research that totally misrepresents the debate? Do they seriously think that the sceptical position is that the climate is not changing? …that we are arguing about whether the globe has warmed over the last 100 years?? Can they really be so removed from reality, or are we lead to conclude that this is another type of “careful speaking.” I would call it passive agression if I did not know so many others floating around in the same bubble.

Tom Harley

…the latest idiocy from our local ideologues of our West Oz green group Conservation Council of WA…who have failed to mention climate change, global warming or whatever it is called this week, for some time now, but have constantly preached on about emissions instead…
is this from Facebook: Neville Numbat
Numbats! The PERTH launch of the Beyond Zero Emissions Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan is this Monday 14 March at the Perth Town Hall. RSVP on this link for the free event.
Events to create change by beyondzeroemissions.org | Beyond Zero Emissions
http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org
Solar and wind can supply Australia’s energy needs within 10 years. This forum will discuss what steps need to be taken now to make it a reality.
(Numbat is a rare furry marsupial with a pointy nose)

Athelstan.

I thought the IPCC or is it the EU or UN or Mickey Mann?
Were committed to keeping the ‘inexorable’ rise in Temperatures [due of course to man made CO2 emissions] to 1.5 deg’ C by the year dot or 2050, or has all that gone out of the window with the science too???
Thus, it still is AGW we’re battling, isn’t it??
You can change the terminology, call it misspeaking, when you mean lying… but it is all in the end, total BS…..because…..:-
Controlling Climate Change, well that’s still God’s job, isn’t it?

H.R.

“In contrast, about 86 percent of Democrats thought climate change was a serious problem, no matter what it was called.”
And the other 14% are WUWT regulars, so please remember when discussing the political aspects of “climate challenge” to throw away your broad brush and write most Democrats instead of Democrats.
(BTW, I vote Indie but I have seen many appeals posted here from those among the 14% not to paint all Democrats or liberals – U.S. version – with the same broad brush. Now they have numbers to back up their plea.)

Nigel S

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

[Banzai voice]
“It’s the Great Banzai Crazy Climate Challenge!”
“Will tempeture go up? Or will tempeture go down?”
“PLACE BETS NOW!!!!”

LeeHarvey

‘Do you believe in climate change?’ Are you kidding me? They might as well ask: Do you believe in the moon?
The only reason that any rational person would ever answer ‘no’ to the question of whether the world’s climate system changes, is because that person is sick of hearing about how Manhattan will be under water by the end of this decade and the residents of Kiribati and the Maldives are all about to become climate refugees.
You can usually tell a lot about the impetus behind a survey by the particular wording of the questions that are asked.

Perry

Andrew Bolt this morning on the radio in Melbourne this morning:
“We chat to Jill Duggan, from the directorate-general for climate action at the European Commission, who says the opposition here to a carbon dioxide tax is ”slightly bizarre” when Europe has no problem with its own price on carbon dioxide. Really, I ask, with European unemployment at 10 per cent and growth at just 1.6 per cent? So I ask this salesman of the EU emissions trading scheme the two basic questions everyone should ask of anyone selling anything: how much does it cost, and what will it do? How many billions will Europe spend on this scheme to cut its emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, and by how much will that cut the world’s temperatures by 2100? The interview suddenly goes very pear-shaped for one of us – and is a stunning indictment of the EU’s foolishness. The question about job losses caused by Europe’s green schemes goes no better. ”
Please listen to this show. It will inform and greatly amuse. The link to the recording is under the picture of Jill Duggan. Make it viral.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_9/#commentsmore

Legatus

“You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up [changing] over the past 100 years, a phenomenon sometimes called ‘global warming’ [‘climate change’].
This question is obviously false and misleading from the get go.
There is no doubt that the climate has changed since the end of the little ice age, it has gotten noticably warmer, therefor, one could honestly answer that it has gotten warmer. The real question is, is that caused by human created CO2? Is it even possible for human created CO2 to do that? Is any human CO2 caused warming big enough to have any noticable effect? That is the real question, the above question is a non question.
As for strictly 100 years, can we say that it has gotten warmer since, oh, say, 1934? It has only gotten warmer after the data (if it can even be called that anymore) was ‘adjusted”.
As for belief, belief is irrelevent, it is either getting warmer, or it is not. If it was getting warmer, we wouldn’t need scientists to tell us that it has gotten 0.1 degrees warmer in some faraway place like Siberia or northern Canada where no one lives and then that means the gobe is getting warmer, or other obscure things such as that, we would see the signs ourselves. If it was really getting warmer, the ice would be melting. If the ice was melting, the sea would be rising rapidly and noticably. No one would be able to mistake that. yet, last I heard, not only has there been no noticable change in the very slow and steady rise of sea level since the end of the little ice age, it has actually leveled off and may right now be dropping.
Therefor, this question is seen to be only about belief, “how do we get people to believe us despite the evidence, how do we get people to believe, I mean really buuuuuh-leeeeeeeeeave!” How do we get people to to actually buy the statment “who are you going to believe, us colledge professors or your lying eyes?” The very wording of the question is a slap in the face of science, even the very idea of science. I mean, who the hell cares WHAT you “believe”? If enough people believe it, is that what we now call truth? I guess astrology is then “proven” true now, right? Therefor, this very question shows that the questioners have intent to lie, since they only care about “belief” and how they can assure it, not about what is or is not proven true.
I, instead, plan to base my “belief” on the scientific method, which says:
Hypothesis, if it was warming, the ice would be melting.
If the ice was melting, the sea would be rising.
If it was human created CO2 cuasing the ice to melt and the sea to rise, that rise would have started a very noticable accleration around say 1940.
No such rise has been seen, the very slow and steady rise since the end of the little ice age hasen’t budged.
Conclusion, human caused CO2 has not created any noticable warming.
The second hypothesis, that any change in ice melting and sea rising is caused by the true cause of “global warming”, the sun (DUH!), and that changes in the sun cause ice to melt and sea to rise (specifically noticed by the cold in the little ice age coinciding with low sunspot numbers), would be born out if the sun went into another little ice age style funk which would coincide with sea levels leveling out or even dropping.
The sun has gone into a funk.
The sea level rise has slowed and stopped right at the time the sun went into it’s funk. and may be dropping as of right now.
Conclusion, the SUN causes global warming, or cooling.
The first hypothesis has been conclusively proven false. The second is looking to be proven true.
So much for “belief”.

anorak2

The question is missing the point by a long shot. The climate has been changing for the last 4 billion years, and continues to do so now. About half of that time it was getting warmer, and half of it cooler. It may well be that we’ve been in a warming phase for the last couple of decades, but that alone is not an interesting observation. It’s pointless asking an audience their opinions on these facts as they are facts, they should not be a subject of an enlightened debate.
The debatable points about “global warming” are:
(1) Climate has been changing at an unusual pace or to unusual conditions recently and/or is likely to do so in the immediate future.
(2) The supposed change is disruptive/dangerous/damaging to humanity (and not neutral or even beneficial).
(3) The supposed change is monocausally attributable to human activities.
(4) Humanity has the technological and logistical means to stop the supposed climate change.
(5) It is desirable to do so; specifically, the damage done by supposed climate change outweighs the overall cost of attempting to stop it.
Supporters of policies that supposedly combat “climate change” are challenged to argue for all points 1 through 5. If they fail to convince us of even one of the above, “climate policies” have no legitimacy. Unfortunately the public debate (where it takes place, which it doesn’t everywhere) rarely addresses these issues and instead focuses mostly on the question if “climate change” is happening or not. But that is mostly irrelevant.

wayne

“Mass Deception” is it’s real name. Quacking or not.

Alan the Brit

As pointed out, lying can be referred to as misspeaking, or better still, describe someone as being “economical with the truth!”. I thought it was all in the name. Note how the EU/UN/Greenpeace/WWF/FoE all refer to inexorable temperatre rises, but never call it Global Warming. I have never heard any of them talk about Global Cooling through CO2 with any seriousness, but Climate Change is the catch-all heads I win tails you loose scenario. How scientific does a body become when it refers to scenarios & storylines when these are terms the entertainment (if it could be called such) industry uses in soap operas!
I also note from Ice-core graphs that those peaks with their little squiggles all seem to be about the same length, & the little squiggly peak we’re in is of similar duration. Can anyone lend credance to the apparent scientific claim that we won’t be entering an ice-age for agt least 50,000-100,000 years?

robB

Next we shall call it…………………………………………..bad weather!

arthur clapham

I ran a road transport business, from the age of 21 years. Much of my company’s work
in 40 years involved long distance movements of agricultural produce, as a consequence my eyes were constantly on the weather. Road conditions for me and
and harvesting conditions for farmers and growers were paramount. Now retired,
but working in my garden, Iam still a keen weather watcher, as I grew up in the 1940’s
I can assure you that I have seen a lot of weather, but have not seen any difference
in recent years its just as changeable as it ever was!

James

In contrast, about 86 percent of Democrats thought climate change was a serious problem, no matter what it was called. Why weren’t they influenced by question wording?

Actually according to you poll they thought it was “happening” not that it was a “serious problem”. Also you forgot to mention that by the same measure 30% of Republicans think climate change isn’t happening. Yet you say

proving once again that the people belive the climate has changed and will continue to do so. It is a rather obvious result

and one of the comments here is

‘Do you believe in climate change?’ Are you kidding me? They might as well ask: Do you believe in the moon?

So while you highlight the response of the Democrats is it really the Republicans you think our allowing political bias cloud their judgement?

Tom

Why don’t they just cut to the chase and call it what it really is, “Global Liberal Activist Nest Padding”.
The Earth is going to continue on being the Earth with or without a good chunck of sweat and treasure being sent down an agenda driven rat hole, but what does my opinion count for, I’m not an elitist egg head. My betters have handled everything so well up to this point, they can’t possibly be wrong, greedy or have ulterior motives can they. Does the fact that I have a splitting headace and am getting real tired of these folks trying to repackage manure so it doesn’t stink so much, appear to be seeping through here?

James

Oops sorry, misread. We are in agreement that all politicians are allowing their political opinion influence their opinion on science.

Tom

Note to moderator, could you pretty please change the “Libal” in my previous post to read “liberal” . Thanks
Reply: Ok, but I’m not going near chunck or headace. ~ ctm

Baa Humbug

I think we should forget about how the questions were/were not framed and concentrate on the fact that AGW is mass deception pure and simple. (thnx wayne 3:15am)
The same word games are being played out right now here in Oz regards the proposed carbon (dioxide) tax. The leftards insist on calling it Carbon Pollution when in fact it is Carbon Dioxide Emissions, or more precisely Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions.
Andrew Bolt and the various conservative contacts of his on radio and press are now insisting that it be called a Carbon Dioxide tax.
Amazingly, a caller to Bolts radio show, an adult, asked if it was a tax on Carbon the black stuff or a tax on CO2 the clear gas stuff. So there is massive ignorance out there.
I urge all commentors and debaters to insist at every opportunity that this scam be called for what it is…Anthropogenic Global Warming and the taxes proposed to curb emissions as Carbon Dioxide taxes.
p.s. What’s the bet these many terms (Climate Challenges etc) emanate out of the marketing offices of WWF and or similar advocacy charity groups.

I think it is incumbent on skeptics to hammer home that the alleged problem is real increased CO2, which is alleged to be caused by human activity. CO2 really absorbs some bands of long wave radiant energy (often referred to as “heat”). CO2 also re-radiates energy in relation to how hot it is. When something absorbs energy, all other things being equal, it gets hotter. To refer to the possible changes that might be caused by increasing CO2 as anything other than “warming” is an attempt to muddy the waters. It is disingenuous. In fact, I would suggest that we specifically refer to human generated CO2 generated warming (oh wait, that is what we mean when we say AGW). Specifics are much easier to defend (and refute, if they are wrong).

It’s much worse than that…. Christine Milne (Aussie Green Politician) has referred to it today as a “Climate Emergency” no less! Man(n) the hoses……
In discussing the selling of the recently announced Carbon Tax….
“Greens senator Christine Milne called for a better sales pitch in the face of a successful scare campaign by Tony Abbott (Opposition Leader)
“We need to link much more closely (with) the climate emergency,” she said.”

Jeff (of Colorado)

ctm – thank you for a morning laugh!!

The climate is changing?? Really?? How astounding. When did this begin?
/sarc off
The worrying thing is that 24% did not agree with the concept that the climate can change. Do they really think the climate is static? (Did this survey sample include the certified insane, perhaps?)
Still, on this side of the pond we can smuggly say, “Well, it was an American survey.” OK, OK – I’m leaving – no need to throw things.

Hugh Pepper

Whether we call the changes “global warming” or climate change”, the effects on ecological systems are the same. When glaciers melt in Greenland, for example, and fresh water is added to the oceans, the currents slow down and this affects weather in northern regions. This phenomenon has been well documented.With the loss of sea ice, much more solar energy is absorbed by the oceans, warming them, and causing causing a thermal expansion which is resulting in rising sea levels everywhere. (This too is well documented)
Information such as this is poorly understood in the USA largely because the media either avoid the subject, or they present muddled information made available by “amateur scientists”. The effect then is obvious; large numbers of people simply don’t understand the problems, and many others “believe” that the issues being described by the scientists are really within God’s sphere of influence.
It is only in the USA that doubt regarding climate change is prevalent. This is not unexpected, given that a significant minority of people do not accept the most basic tenets of science, especially the theory of evolution.

Tom in Florida

It all reminds me of :

redneck

It seems to me that they missed the central point of the whole Global Warming Climate Change debate when phrasing the question. IMHO it would have improved their survey had they also asked participants to respond to the terms Anthropogenic Global Warming and Anthropogenic Climate Change. I wonder how that would have panned out amongst the political classes.

Patrick Davis

“Hugh Pepper says:
March 9, 2011 at 4:31 am”
Where is your proof Gleenland ice sheets are melting AND cooling the oceans AND slowing currents? I’ve seen it in the movies, but there is not one shred of proof it is happening AND it os caused by AGW.

JohnH

Hugh Pepper says:
March 9, 2011 at 4:31 am
Whether we call the changes “global warming” or climate change”, the effects on ecological systems are the same. When glaciers melt in Greenland, for example, and fresh water is added to the oceans, the currents slow down and this affects weather in northern regions. This phenomenon has been well documented.With the loss of sea ice, much more solar energy is absorbed by the oceans, warming them, and causing causing a thermal expansion which is resulting in rising sea levels everywhere. (This too is well documented)
Information such as this is poorly understood in the USA largely because the media either avoid the subject, or they present muddled information made available by “amateur scientists”. The effect then is obvious; large numbers of people simply don’t understand the problems, and many others “believe” that the issues being described by the scientists are really within God’s sphere of influence.
It is only in the USA that doubt regarding climate change is prevalent. This is not unexpected, given that a significant minority of people do not accept the most basic tenets of science, especially the theory of evolution.
1. Its not only in the US that belief in AGW is waning, same is happening in the UK, Australia and in Europe even in Germany home of the Green political party. Mainly due to the tempetures not actually rising, the predicted endless doughts being replaced by floods and the no more snow in winter predictions being shown to be 100% false.
2. Belief in scientists is not 100% and never should be, if we believed Scientists in the UK we would still be eating BSE infected beef and being told its safe. Thats just one of many.

Patrick Davis

Media coverage of the carbon tax “debate” is shocking in Australia, I mean really, it’s way overkill every days since the Govn’t announcement that it would install a “carbon tax”. If the “consensus” was so solid and the “science was so settled” and most Australians believe all “facts” are presented in support that emissions of CO2 from activity is killing the planet, then why is Gillard having such a hard time selling the tax to the public? The answer, to me at least, seems obvious.

Bruce Cobb

The question on whether GW has been happening is a tricky one because, while hardly anyone would say that it hasn’t warmed some the past 100 years, it now appears the warming has stopped. Therefore, although warming did happen (past tense), it no longer appears to be, therefore, to say it has been happening (present tense) would be incorrect. Republicans and Independents would be more apt to suss out that difference, whereas Dimocrats would not.

Frank K.

In other naming news:
“Top Climate Scientists to Give Themselves Nicknames.”
In an effort to build a bridge between the elite climate science community and ordinary, common citizens, top climate scientists will be referring to themselves using colorful nicknames. “I think we can better reach the public with our message” said James “Jimbo” Hansen. “Yes, and removing formal titles like ‘Dr.’ should make us more accessible,” offered Gavin “Bubba” Schmidt. Also on board with the new approach are Michael “Big Mike” Mann, Kevin “Kiwi Kev” Trenberth, and Mark “Moondoggie” Serreze.
\sarc

The “100 year warming” argujment is nionsesne. Even IPCC admist that AGW started only since 1975.
Truth is, at least Northern hemisphere since 1900 warmed a lot, then cooled, then warmed barely above the previous peak and now it is cooling again.

rbateman

Alas, we haven’t all drowned, broiled or been blown out to sea, as Gore & Hansen promised.
The only dangerous thing about Climate Change is the vermin who are out to de-energize the West, leaving it helpless to cope with any change in climate, physical, economic or political.

North of 43 and south of 44

A rose by any other name ….

Yikes!
Reading this thread has ruined my whole day and I may not be able to sleep tonight.
The climate is changing?
Whoa!
Why wasn’t I informed?
Why hasn’t this been discussed somewhere on the Internet?
I like it here in Florida but I’m not staying here now. I’m moving to a place where the climate isn’t changing. Change is just too disruptive and challenging for me.
The first step in my search for a new place to live will be to look at http://www.surfacestations.org/ and find the place that is the furthest from any of the monitoring stations. The logic – if there is nothing there to detect the change, it might not be changing.
You just gotta believe.
/grin

Ed Fix

How unbearably stereotypical. They’re “focus-grouping” new global warming euphemisms.

Andy West

Whatever the science may eventually converge to (catastrophe or non-problem or somewhere inbetween), I’d expect renaming and reframing at this stage, in fact I’d exxpect more to come…
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/06/climate-story-telling-angst/#comment-53804

Beth Cooper

These doctoral candidates 🙁 seem quite unaware of the political evolution of the concepts of their “research.”
When temperatures were higher during the 1998 El Nino, the term used by the converted was ‘Anthropological Global Warming.’….. But then, post 2000, temperatures plateaued. Not to worry, the Ministry of Truth knows what to do, let’s call it ‘Climate Change.’ Fits the facts, (climate always changes and any skeptic who disagrees is shown to be scientifically unaware and we can call them ‘flat earthers!’)
Things get hot! (Metaphorically, that is.) Climategate- delete all emails! McIntyre/ Mosher& Charles the Mod, et al, Anthony and WUWT Award winning Blog & Surface Stations exposures, Willis’ postings… we all know the history 🙂 Hmm, change it to ‘CLIMATE DISRUPTION’ …. That’ll scare the living daylights out of them…

Tom says:
March 9, 2011 at 3:44 am
Note to moderator, could you pretty please change the “Libal” in my previous post to read “liberal” . Thanks
Reply: Ok, but I’m not going near chunck or headace. ~ ctm

LOL!
On topic, remember that the issue for the naive left is neither weather, nor climate, nor any empirically verifiable hypotheses. Indeed, the word ‘hypothesis’ would be anathema to these folks, for it explicitly challenges ‘belief’. ‘Climate change’, ‘carbon pollution’, etc., are just codewords, telling the listener that you accept and pay obeisance to the prevailing politically-correct ideology of ‘sustainability’ and statist intervention to ‘save the planet’ from man and his works.
To say that you ‘believe in climate change’ is in effect to say that you subscribe to the good feeling you get from joining with other fellow-traveling watermelons in opposing the nasty right-wing capitalists, warmongers, and other despoilers of the Earth. Never mind that it was those evil men who built the factories and refineries and power plants that keep you and your family housed and your Toyota Pious running.
/Mr Lynn

Alan the Brit

Put AGW into perspective. The “scientists” say 10 years is too short a time to determine a temperature trend, i.e 1998-2008/9 for cooling. Yet they would concede though that 30 years is too short a trend for warming/cooling, but they say their 30 year ranges are appropriate for the purpose. However, the planet is 4,500 million years old. If the planet is that old, & let’s say the atmosphere was relatively fixed component wise by 4,000 million years ago, for argument sake, we’re talking about 150 years of temperature increase, which means we’re talking ab out 150/4,000,000 x 100% = 3.75 x 10^-6% of the Earth’s history, which I personally think ain’t worth a brass farthing of worrying about!

Pete H

U-M Department of Psychology!!!!! Blimey! Everyone wants a piece of the AGW grants!
Is anyone in the study qualified as a “Climate Scientist”?
Sarc<
Every time one of the AGW gang accuses us on denying Climate Change makes me want to………….Phttttttttt!

It’s what happens when you get a bunch of closed in true believers trying to figure out what went wrong, then someone pops up claiming that it wasn’t that they were wrong, but that they just didn’t market it properly. Suddenly the mood elevates to near delirium as they convince themselves that they have dodged a bullet, when in fact all they have done is change the subject without dealing with the problem. The original issues still remain, but wishful thinking overwhelms their senses and they force themselves to act as if nothing is wrong–and continue making the same mistakes. This usually precedes a massive failure, which finally forces the participants to face the problems head on, but by that time it is way too late. Look at how GM has behaved, or Egypt etc. Same thing.
Cheers! (ex-INGSOC)

Paul

“the lead author of the article about the study and a doctoral candidate in the U-M Department of Psychology”
Yet another example of how, IMHO, ‘higher education’ is becoming not only worthless but harmful to the intellect of those involved.
“Intelligence appears to be the thing that enables a man to get along without education. Education enables a man to get along without the use of his intelligence.” – Albert Edward Wiggin

Jason Calley

The name game… Yeah, “carbon dioxide emissions” are now “carbon pollution.” Why do they just pick on the carbon of carbon dioxide? I mean, there are TWO oxygens for each carbon in carbon dioxide. Wouldn’t it make twice as much sense to refer to carbon dioxide emissions as “oxygen pollution”?
As for “climate change”, I make it a point to always say “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.” Anytime CAGW alarmists use a name that leaves out any of those four attributes — catastrophic, anthropogenic, global or warming — then they are moving the goal posts to cover up their lack of accurate predictions.

chris smith

This is obvious. Can’t believe a doctorate can be awarded for this. Obviously more people will agree with a wider statement than a narrower one. It does not require research.

Nuke

The various rebrandings of AGW as “climate change” or “climate disruption” or whatever just aren’t catching on with the public. The new term is “Clean Energy,” as in maybe greenhouse gases aren’t really changing the climate, but we need to get off carbon anyway.
This isn’t a name change so much but an attempt to change the topic. The greens decided long ago that fossil fuels are evil and jumped on the global warming bandwagon as a justification of that belief. (Notice the belief came first and the purported reason for that belief came second.)
Another attempt to change the topic of discussion is claiming we need to stop using fossil fuels because of national security. Never mind that we buy almost new oil from Arab nations and especially never mind that producing our own oil would also help ensure our own security. Debating with facts and logic won’t win points in this game. The greens decided long ago what the solutions should be based upon their beliefs, not facts.

ShrNfr

Wowser, what is happening in the middle troposphere lately in the NH AMSU TMT Brightness Temperature The TLT channel is cold too.

NoAstronomer

“Overall, 74 percent of people thought the problem was real when…”
When looking at the inferred results of a survey *always* look at the actual question that was asked:
“You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up [changing] over the past 100 years, a phenomenon sometimes called ‘global warming’ [‘climate change’]. What is your personal opinion regarding whether or not this has been happening?”
You’ll note that this question says nothing (all-caps underlined, bold, italics) about there being a problem. Stating that 74% of people thought there was an actual problem is just plain lying.
Mike.