While Waxman and Markey continue to try to salvage the EPA in hearings on the hill, the public shift clearly says “we aren’t buying it anymore”. This quote from Gallup last year pretty much sums it up
“In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.”
Last year:
Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated
PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.
These results are based on the annual Gallup Social Series Environment poll, conducted March 4-7 of this year. The survey results show that the reversal in Americans’ concerns about global warming that began last year has continued in 2010 — in some cases reverting to the levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago.
This year:
More Than 4 in 10 Say Seriousness of Global Warming Is Exaggerated
The plurality of Americans continue to believe the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated in the news (43%) rather than generally correct (26%) or generally underestimated (29%). This is the third year in a row that a substantial plurality has believed global warming’s effects are not as bad as they are portrayed, a departure from prior years, when Americans were about evenly split between the three points of view. The percentage who think global warming’s effects are exaggerated is down a bit from last year.
=================================================================
Last year:
For example, the percentage of Americans who now say reports of global warming are generally exaggerated is by a significant margin the highest such reading in the 13-year history of asking the question. In 1997, 31% said global warming’s effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48%.
Fewer Americans Think Effects of Global Warming Are Occurring
“In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.”
Many global warming activists have used film and photos of melting ice caps and glaciers, and the expanding reach of deserts, to drive home their point that global warming is already having alarming effects on the earth. While these efforts may have borne fruit over much of the 2000s, during the last two years, Americans’ convictions about global warming’s effects have waned.
A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming’s effects have already begun or will begin shortly.
Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).
The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.
This year:
While Americans’ self-professed understanding of global warming has increased over time — from 69% saying they understand the issue “very well” or “fairly well” in 2001, to 74% in 2006 and 80% in the current poll — their concern about global warming across several measures is generally in the lower range of what Gallup has found historically.
For example, 49% currently believe the effects of global warming have already begun to happen, similar to last year’s estimate and one point above the historical low from 1997. Just three years ago, 61% thought the effects were already occurring. Over the same time, the percentage doubting global warming’s effects will ever happen has increased, from 11% to nearly 20%, including 18% this year.
==================================================================
Last year:
Americans Divided on Causes of Global Warming
In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.
This year:
Read the entire poll story from 2010 here
…and from 2011 here
======================================================
NOTE: The first published version of this article was incomplete and did not have comparisons from last year’s poll to this year as was intended. This was a consequence of have two browser windows open with editing capabilities, side by side, so I could do comparisons and then cut and paste portions, and the wrong one got published accidentally. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused in the 45 minutes or so the incomplete story was up. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hugh Pepper says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:39 am
This is a sad statement, because there is no rational reason why people should be failing to grasp the “seriousness” of climate change and global warming.The vast majority of working scientists and the entire world’s Academies of Science are aware of this seriousness and they have given us enough evidence to alert us to problems ahead. It is tragic that anyone can reject this evidence and that a do-nothing, business-as-usual approach is being supported. Our children and grandchildren will not forgive us.
_______________________________________________
I am one who believes global warming is real and partly human induced. However, the way the “team” and others have doged difficult questions, hyped a consensus, silenced valid criticism, censored inquieris in RC.org, refused to be honest about the huge uncertainties of GCMs and overstated certainty and concensus in almost every aspect, deeply troubles me.
They have actually told us long ago that their models predict near-impossible scenarios for the near future. The feeble attempts at mitigation and opposition to viable options such as nuclear energy made me a pessimist long ago. Mann will show you a hockey stick and ask for your tax dollars to prove that “it’s ever worse than you thought” and then refuse to participate in debates posing the tough questions.
Give me a very good, understandable and realistic way to avoid the GCM-predicted scenarios? Is there any way in which it could be done without causing mass poverty on the basis of very simple GCMs?
I believe the evidence points to a human component in GW. I don’t believe it shows anything as catastrophic as Gore will have me believe, and I think the GCMs are fundamentally flawed and limited in predicting actual climate trends.
And based on this same poll, 78% oppose taxes on electricity to pay for it, and 71% oppose taxes on gasoline to pay for it. So find another way. That’s nice that you demonstrated people are well-meaning, but try to hit their pocketbooks with unproven speculation and see how long your argument lasts.
Can you not read all the red sub-headlines in this post that say “last year” and “this year” ?? The link you posted is what was used for this post as a comparison.
And Mars is made of cheese. Speaking of some fantasy poll with no information or sourcing as to who did it and how is about as meaningless as air conditioning in the arctic.
Attitude Surveys
The whole idea of giving people statements to agree or disagree with on a matter as complex as this is flawed. They should be given open-ended questions like “What do YOU think about the debate about global warming that’s being going on for the past couple of decades?” and then be nudged to give full answers which can later be assessed and categorized.
But of course, this is a very expensive means of polling. It involves interviewers actually writing stuff down and someone analysing the mass of opinion produced.
MUCH cheaper and quicker to give them a couple of statements to agree or disagree with. Ask a leading question, get a cr*p answer and get the results into the media next day! Never mind the quality feel the width!
Hugh Pepper says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:39 am
“This is a sad statement, because there is no rational reason why people should be failing to grasp the “seriousness” of climate change and global warming.”
Have you visited Youtube and seen Richard Muller’s criticisms of the hockey stick. Just go to Youtube and search on “Richard Muller climate.” I would really like to hear what you have to say about his video. Yes, the climate might be warming but that does not change the fact that Mann, Jones, and The Team lied in a blatant and indefensible way. If people fail to believe in what you perceive to be a climate emergency, a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of The Team. I would like to see you give them the upbraiding that they deserve. Do it here.
Per Willis’ excellent post How Much Would You Buy? Posted on March 13, 2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/13/how-much-would-you-buy/
The working question should be –
Per EPA’s data the cost for regulating CO2 the new regulations will cost US$78 billion per year and will result in global mean temperature estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100. Do you think this – (rotated)
a- Too little.
b- Just right.
c- Too much
d- They really want to take how much of my money
Then ask how much you would pay.
eadler says:
March 16, 2011 at 6:14 am
The percentage who believe human activity is responsible for global warming actually increased from 50 a year ago to 52%, while the percent who believe that global warming is caused by natural environment decreased from 46% to 43%.
Gallup shows a +/- 4 & 5 percent. This results in ‘no statistical difference.
The poll shows that political party affiliation is driving the people’s beliefs about what is a scientific issue.
And 20% of the polled have — have not very well, or not at all or no opinion in understanding this issue? So they only listen to MSM spin.
Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity. One would think that responsible political leaders would go with the opinions of the scientists who study the subject, but it appears that the Republicans don’t want to accept what for them is ideologically and “Inconvenient Truth”.
With a confidence interval of 4% and confidence level 95% the 79 participants in the referenced poll equates to a population of 91.
From Willis’ excellent post How Much Would You Buy? Posted on March 13, 2011
The real question should be – EPA wants to regulate CO2 to control global warming. Per their data the new regulations will cost US$78 billion per year. This will result in global mean temperature to be reduced by an estimated 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.
Do you believe this to be (questions rotated)
a – Too little
b- Just right
c- Too much
d- Are you kidding US$1,900 trillion dollars for each measly degree of cooling.
eadler says:
March 16, 2011 at 6:14 am
The percentage who believe human activity is responsible for global warming actually increased from 50 a year ago to 52%, while the percent who believe that global warming is caused by natural environment decreased from 46% to 43%.
Gallup shows a 4 & 5% error rate, so statistically speaking, it is no change.
Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity. One would think that responsible political leaders would go with the opinions of the scientists who study the subject, but it appears that the Republicans don’t want to accept what for them is ideologically and “Inconvenient Truth”.
At a confidence interval of 4% and confidence level of 95% this poll works out to a population size of 91. Since 20% of the responses said they understand this issue not very well, or not at all, or no opinion, I would like to see the results without their MSM driven opinion.
The believers need to further answer:
Is the magnitude of AGW:
–Academic trivia
–Measurable, but not serious
–Serious, but we can live with it
—Catastrophic
Many scientists believe we’ve cause a bit of warming. Only those with an agenda see a catastrophe in the works.
Hugh Pepper says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:39 am
Our children and grandchildren will not forgive us.
Yes they will, because, contrary to what the Climate Koolaid drinking Alarmists want, people are becoming more and more skeptical of their claims, and are putting the kibosh on things like Cap n’ Trade and other schemes that would do nothing except drive up energy costs and make everyone poorer. And, I’m guessing they wouldn’t like that so much. They will also appreciate the extra C02 helping plants, and adding to our food supply. They will certainly wonder about the sanity of those who demonized C02.
eadler says:
The poll shows that political party affiliation is driving the people’s beliefs about what is a scientific issue.
Repeat this to yourself:
“Correlation is not causation”
Until you understand what it means.
Then you’ll be one step ahead of “etal”
Ok, so this was going to be a short comment on the Cap and Trade scheme, but I got…uh…sort’a carried away. So, here it goes.
With all due respect to my all my scientifically-inclined friends here, and keeping in mind the importance of good science, the real bottom line is that this battle is not being fought as a scientific dispute, but as a war of ideas and ideals…an “information war,” as it were. Just look at the staggering chain of ideas the world-wide public was successfully managed into accepting: 1) that the world is warming; 2) that this warming is very bad; 3) that humankind is responsible for this warming; 4) that man-made CO2 is the cause of this very bad global warming; 5) that we can stall or roll-back the warming curve by limiting CO2 emissions on a personal, national and global level; 6) that the UN and compliant national governments can best manage and control CO2 emissions, thus preventing the bad global warming and valiantly saving the entire world.
Yup, this sure was a tall order and yet, somehow, in spite of the self-evident kookiness and cockiness of the core narrative, or web of narratives, the AGW meme hummed along very nicely for about two decades. Starting off as a commercially and politically-driven ideology with strong mystical and even messianic overtones, the AGW campaign successfully co-opted what turns out to be a rather smallish number of scientists who, with the help of authoritative organizations and flashy celebrities were able to convince and recruit folks like me; we, the unwashed scientific semi-literates and socio-economic plebes who treated AGW as the received and infallible faith and saw its supporting structures, in the form of popular environmentalism, as the “good works” required of all good people. This scheme worked not because the science was convincing to an otherwise un-scientific majority, but because it successfully enlisted the cooperation and enthusiasm of nearly all important sectors of our societies through powerful and well-coordinated marketing campaigns. If we play the historian and psychologist, we can better understand how instilling terror on one hand and providing hope (“with certain conditions”) on the other, all greased with billions of dollars, can so easily forge universal agreement and cooperation by the majority…scientists included. We can even see this nasty process as an ambitious and nearly-successful attempt to create the first artificial “hydraulic super-civilization,” in this case not one built upon control over water, but over the control of a by-product of our civilization.
A clue to the origins and energy source of what we should, without hesitation, call a brazen scam, is that what burst this AGW bubble is not just the exposure of the shoddy pseudoscience behind it, but the unexpected impact of the low-cost home PC and the “viral” growth of the Internet. These made the awareness and the battle against bad science and corrupt politics possible and doable in the first place. The PC and the ‘Net effectively challenged the high priesthood monopolies on knowledge and information as surely as a sudden, magical appearance of plentiful and widely distributed sources of clean water would have challenged and destroyed the dynastic autocracies of ancient Egypt or Mohenjo-Daro. Those who launched and developed the AGW bubble obviously couldn’t predict, much less control the revolutionary effects of this sudden and world-wide decentralization of information. Anyone who is a fan of sci-fi can attest that even the most imaginative writers out there failed to see this one coming. (As an entertaining aside, any “Dunies” out there may note that Frank Hebert of the *Dune* series rightly anticipated the unpredictable messiness of “thinking machines” in his tales, and very cleverly “banned” them in his fictional future universe.)
Let’s remember that twenty years ago, Watts Up with That would not have been possible, and ditto for the thousands of independent minds able to reach millions of ordinary and not-so-ordinary people out there through the Internet. Let’s also remember that science and information technologies by themselves are of little use without healthy civic, democratic and open societies. This is why the warmist myth failed as a monopoly and why AGW is in palliative care, with its beneficiaries looking for the most dignified exit and least destructive way to suck up the losses. The science was and is crucial in this drama, but the sudden explosion of un-controlled information revealed the ideological and financial underpinnings of the AGW scam and drove the proverbial stake through its heart. Most people may not understand graphs and proxies, but they can surely smell a rat. What also changed is that unlike the halcyon days of two decades ago, the UN is now seen as fundamentally untrustworthy and corrupt, and that the “green” sector is no longer seen as the brave new frontier led by cool, well-meaning hippies, but by powerful, connected and wealthy organizations and corporations. This is why the first victim of the AGW bubble-burst is the preposterous Cap and Trade scheme. No longer a wise and necessary measure by our well-meaning superiors, it is rightly viewed as a clever and bold attempt to institute controls and management of our industry and free enterprise systems by power and wealth-hungry national governments and the failing and irredeemably politicized and corrupt United Nations.
So, to finally put a “cap” on my own lengthy jeremiad, I’d like to humbly suggest that to finally scotch this global scam, the “softer,” social or human, sciences should perhaps be included in the struggle. Economics, political science, sociology, geography, historiography, anthropology and even psychology, religion and art can play a greater role in what is no less than an epic and literally, a life-or-death battle over an attempt to control of human behaviour, production, trade and governments. And, as influential and wealthy as the proponents of this unraveling scam may be, the combined effect of thousands of independent intellectuals, activists and communicators working in free societies can, as we can see, slay this greedy dragon and make sure that it’ll be hard for others to appear.
Alright, I’m off my soap box now, so thanks for your heroic patience, folks!
It’s odd to lump “happening already” together with “will start soon” – because “will start soon” means “not happening already”.
Like adding “started my diet” to “will start my diet some time soon”.
For me, and likely a lot of the general public, the climate gate scandal has left me feeling betrayed. The disregard for the scientific method alluded to in the communications released leaves me no choice but to question the output of the models that man made CO2 (let alone natural CO2, solar radiation, etc.) is an immediate danger to mankind. In fact, if the e-mails had bent sent to the FDA, under the whistleblower laws, an evaluation of the DATA, and the process(es) leading to “hiding the decline”, would likely be undertaken to see if the results of the means of correcting the data had an intent (motive) leading to what would legally fall under a False claims per: “21 U.S.C. § 331 : US Code – Section 331: Prohibited act
(q)((2) With respect to any device, the submission of any report that
is required by or under this chapter that is false or misleading in
any material respect.” mm comment- a device can be considered software and the output of the software.
By calling the Science settled the general public has been lead to believe the stage of Knowledge of the factors influencing climate (and mankind’s effect on it) are known with a fair amount of certainty. For me for the Science to be settled our knowledge needs to be at stage 4, at a minimum, in R. Bohn’s Stages of Knowledge as noted
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/1994-fall/3615/measuring-and-managing-technological-knowledge/
Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge
By Roger E. Bohn, October 15, 1994 Sloan Management Review, Fall 1994, pp 61-73
“Knowledge is power.” — Francis Bacon
“As we move from the industrial age into the information age, knowledge is becoming an ever more central force behind the competitive success of firms and even nations. Nonaka has commented, “In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge.”1 Philosophers have analyzed the nature of knowledge for millennia; in the past half-century, cognitive and computer scientists have pursued it with increased vigor.
But it has turned out that information is much easier to store, describe, and manipulate than is knowledge. One consequence is that, although an organization’s knowledge base may be its single most important asset, its very intangibility makes it difficult to manage systematically.2
The goal of this paper is to present a framework for measuring and understanding one particular type of knowledge: technological knowledge, i.e., knowledge about how to produce goods and services.
stage Name Comment Typical Form of Knowledge
1 Complete Ignorance – Nowhere
2 Awareness Pure Art Tacit
3 Measure Pretechnological Written
4 Control the Mean Scientific Method feasible Written and embodied in hardware
5 Process Capability Local recipe Hardware and operating manual
6 Process Characterization Tradeoffs to reduce costs Empirical equations (numerical)
7 Know Why Science Scientific formulas and algorithums
8 Complete Knowledge Nirvana “
The talking point for the alarmists has been that 2010 was the ‘warmist year on record’. They couldnt say that warming is accelerating because it hasnt warmed since 1998. Next year will be a completely different story. Troposheric temperatures have plunged much more than they expected and with the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) still near record high, temperatures should continue to plunge and stay low at least untill August if you believe that global temps lag the SOI by seven months.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
Smokey says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:32 am
eadler says:
“Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity.”
Enough with your 97% nonsense. It has been repeatedly debunked, yet you cling to it like a drowning man clings to a stick. You couldn’t get a poll where 97% believed Hitler was a bad guy. But you actually believe that 97% of scientists believe humans cause global warming? Get a grip.
==========================
Yes, indeed. I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it. It saddens me that people will stoop to such levels to manipulate the truth for their own ends. Of course, eadler makes no mention of the poll of 30,000 scientists who were against the notion of AGW.
Simple arithmetic shows these claims to be nonsense, since less than 100 of respondents could be classed as climate scientists. That would leave 3 scientists who disapproved of the motion. But I can think of at least Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Pielke, Baliunus, Scafetta, Douglass, Loehle, Tisdale who are also against the motion. The number 97% is so ridiculous that even a politician would be embarrased to make such a statement. It is just jaw droppingly nuts.
Response to Theo Goodwin:
There is a vast body of well researched data, including paleoclimate findings, which support the case for the relationship between CO2 and warming. Even though the “climategate” folks have been exonerated in several independent reviews, the fact remains that the case they have been making has been independently confirmed by the research of many others. Alternative scenarios have been thoroughly debunked. eg Lindzen et al. There are still many who are making rhetorical arguments, expressing their “skepticism”, but they have no science to confirm their positions.
If there is a disconfirming position which can be borne out by researched findings, this should be presented immediately in the accepted forums.
Hugh Pepper,
Every one of your statements is wrong. Just so you know.
I’ll deconstruct later, gotta run an errand.
Hugh Pepper,
“There is a vast body of well researched data, including paleoclimate findings, which support the case for the relationship between CO2 and warming.”
What data are you referring to? On geological time scales there is no correlation between co2 levels and temperatures. Eg, the late Ordovician ice age occurred at a time of co2 levels rising to 5000 ppm.
You claim that sceptics have ‘no science to back their claims’, yet the claims are based on the lack of science of the AGW camp. Lack of evidence such as the missing heat, the debunking of the hockey sticks (several times), the lack of warming over the last decade, and the refutation of models that are based on hypothetical assumptions. No scientist has yet produced any evidence to show that warming is predominately caused by co2, and that is why sceptics are sceptical. And so should you be.
Mr Pepper this is science (from a pro AGW site BTW)
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
It just ain’t warming, I’m Afraid. Please stick to climate/weather data.
Hugh Pepper says:
March 16, 2011 at 2:36 pm
You did not address my question. I did not expect that you would. However, I will try again. Given the specific claims about the hockey stick made in Richard Muller’s video, how do you respond to them? Were Mann, Jones, and The Team dishonest? I am asking for your response to these questions. Please do not respond if you have no response to these questions.
Hugh Pepper,
Smokey will indeed “deconstruct” later…and once more, it will be amusing, but not to worry, he’s “deconstructed” on me many times as I’m one of the few “warmist” regulars here.
richcar1225 says:
March 16, 2011 at 1:26 pm
The talking point for the alarmists has been that 2010 was the ‘warmist year on record’. They couldnt say that warming is accelerating because it hasnt warmed since 1998. Next year will be a completely different story. Troposheric temperatures have plunged much more than they expected and with the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) still near record high, temperatures should continue to plunge and stay low at least untill August if you believe that global temps lag the SOI by seven months.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
_____
Funny, you say we’ve not seen any warming since 1998, and yet, the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on instrument record. How that work out? Also, of course tropos temps have fallen this year with a La Nina. And, I’ve noticed the AGW skeptics haven’t be crowing this year about the Arctic Sea ice, since is has been at or very near record low extent all winter and the Arctic Temps have been running warm all winter. How that work out if we’re headed for a big global cooling. Shouldn’t the Arctic cool too and the sea ice begin to at least get back to normal, (which it hasn’t been at since 2004)?
It seems skeptics are reaching desperately at anything to try and pull attention from the longer term trends (decadal or longer) which are all pretty much in-line with the general trends shown in the GCMs, to focus on shorter term weather events. Some here would find it in their interest to visit this brand new climate blog, officially approved by NASA, if you want to get an another opinion:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/
Mark Miller says:
March 16, 2011 at 12:32 pm
For me, and likely a lot of the general public, the climate gate scandal has left me feeling betrayed.
___
Nope, the general public could care less about the so-call climategate “scandal”. As I commented on here many times, those who frequent climate related blogs (myself included) are pretty much way way out of the mainstream general public.
R. Gates says:
March 16, 2011 at 4:18 pm
“Funny, you say we’ve not seen any warming since 1998, and yet, the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on instrument record. How (sic) that work out?”
I don’t have to time to produce the actual record, but it is quite easy to show how that would work out. All the years 1990-2009 have the same temperature except for 1997 which is lower. That way the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest of all and there has been no warming since 1998.
Hugh Pepper’s comments are in italics:
There is a vast body of well researched data, including paleoclimate findings, which support the case for the relationship between CO2 and warming.
Maybe there’s a halfvast body of grant-chasing papers and GIGO computer output, but one thing is missing: empirical evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming. The only observed relationship between CO2 and temperature shows that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, not vice versa. Thus, CO2 is a function of rising temperatures, not a cause.
Even though the “climategate” folks have been exonerated in several independent reviews, the fact remains that the case they have been making has been independently confirmed by the research of many others.
Independent?!? Only the cognizant dissonance-afflicted believe that anyone was “exonerated.” The whitewash show trials were conducted with everyone in the room being on the same side. No cross examination, no follow-up questions, only softball questions – and the outcome was predetermined when Mann was allowed to repeatedly confer with individual committee members before and during the show trials. Every “investigation” followed the same script.
Next, Pepper says: the case they have been making has been independently confirmed by the research of many others.
Wrong. Mann’s Hokey Stick was beloved by the UN/IPCC. It was visually much more spectacular and scary than any of the charts the IPCC uses now. So why did the IPCC stop publishing Mann’s chart? Because it was so thoroughly debunked by McIntyre and McKittrick that the IPCC was forced to drop it. It was proved to be bogus, based on cherry-picked, incorrect proxies, with the good proxies hidden in an ftp file labeled “censored” by a devious and unprincipled Michael Mann.
Mann is still the same climate charlatan he was in MBH98/99. In Mann’s ’08 paper, he used a known corrupted proxy – the Tiljander sediment series – in order to make another hockey stick chart. His fraudulent paper was hand-waved through the corrupt climate pal review system, but then blown out of the water when his shenanigans were exposed, again by McIntyre. So Pepper’s statement above is completely wrong.
Alternative scenarios have been thoroughly debunked. eg Lindzen et al. There are still many who are making rhetorical arguments, expressing their “skepticism”, but they have no science to confirm their positions.
Prof Richard Lindzen is smeared here by Pepper, who gives no details. Dr Lindzen is head of MIT’s atmospheric sciences department. For Pepper to claim that scientific skeptics such as Dr Lindzen “have no science to confirm their positions” makes Pepper nothing more than a crank.
Finally, Pepper says:
If there is a disconfirming position which can be borne out by researched findings, this should be presented immediately in the accepted forums.
There is one common thread that runs through all climate alarmists: their refusal to understand and/or follow the scientific method. For the umpteenth time: scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on the alarmist crowd to provide testable, reproducible, real world evidence showing that human CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming. But there is zero evidence showing that the current *very mild* 0.7°C warming over the past century and a half is due to anything other than natural variability as the planet continues to emerge from the LIA.
Hugh Pepper got everything in his comment completely wrong. Now it’s been corrected here and in the comments following Pepper’s.
Which leaves R Gates, who has never produced the putative evidence I’ve repeatedly asked for, showing global damage from CO2. In fact, there is no such empirical, testable evidence of global harm from that benign trace gas. CO2 is both harmless and beneficial – to anyone who follows the scientific method. But to Gates, it’s his evidence-free reason that Arctic ice is declining. As if.
Smokey says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:32 am
eadler says:
“Two different polls of climate scientists on a similar question get 97% of scientists believe global warming is a result of human activity.”
Enough with your 97% nonsense. It has been repeatedly debunked, yet you cling to it like a drowning man clings to a stick. You couldn’t get a poll where 97% believed Hitler was a bad guy. But you actually believe that 97% of scientists believe humans cause global warming? Get a grip.
==========================
Yes, indeed. I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it. It saddens me that people will stoop to such levels to manipulate the truth for their own ends. Of course, eadler makes no mention of the poll of 30,000 scientists who were against the notion of AGW.
Simple arithmetic shows these claims to be nonsense, since less than 100 of respondents could be classed as climate scientists. That would leave 3 scientists who disapproved of the motion. But I can think of at least Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Pielke, Baliunus, Scafetta, Douglass, Loehle, Tisdale who are also against the motion. The number 97% is so ridiculous that even a politician would be embarrased to make such a statement. It is just jaw droppingly nuts.
Smokey,
You are assuming that the entire universe of climate scientists is the number who replied to the both of the polls. They were only samples. One of the polls was taken by Roger Pielke Sr. he is certainly not part of the 97% who accept that humans are causing global warming.