Climate Alarmists fighting a losing battle: Nearly Half Of Young Americans Are Climate Skeptics

New Survey: Nearly Half Of Young Americans Are Climate Skeptics

The Younger They Are, The More Skeptical



In fact, the age group that least agreed with the statement that global warming is a fact and caused by CO2 emissions was that of 18 to 20-year-olds. The assumption that younger US adults are more liberal when it comes to global warming does not hold up; if anything, they are even more skeptical. –Emma Kromm, Harvard Political Review, 29 April 2015

New Survey: Nearly Half Of Young Americans Are Climate Sceptics

From the Harvard Political Review, 29 April 2015 by Emma Kromm (h/t to The GWPF)

At the White House Correspondents Association Dinner last Saturday night, President Obama got angry. With the help of his anger translator, Luther (played by comedian Keegan-Michael Key), the president abandoned his usual reasonable tone to condemn those who deny climate change. “The science is clear,” he began. “Every serious scientist says we need to act. The Pentagon says it’s a national security risk.” As the president continued, it became clear that he no longer needed Luther to reveal his inner anger, and he drew laughs from the crowd after letting loose. “It is crazy! What about our kids? What kind of stupid, shortsighted, irresponsible… ”

While the president’s skit might have been the highlight of the night, do Americans really need this kind of angry reminder that climate change is a problem? Some seem to think we are living in a world where climate change is widely acknowledged as an irrefutable fact. Mary Robinson, the seventh president of Ireland and founder of the Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice, has argued that the generation in power now is the first to fully know about climate change, and the last with the ability to prevent its projected effects. She and others are of the opinion that, at this point, all but a few outliers understand global warming, its causes, and its dire consequences.

New data from the Harvard Public Opinion Project tell a very different story. Only 55 percent of survey participants agreed with the statement,

“Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants.” Twenty percent held the belief that “Global warming is a proven fact, and is mostly caused by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars,” and the remaining 23 percent who answered the question believe that “Global warming is a theory that has not been proven yet.”

Even more surprising, these numbers are the same across the board for participants between 18 and 29 years old, with 51-56 percent agreeing that global warming is a fact and is caused by fuel emissions across age groups. In fact, the age group that least agreed with the first statement was that of 18 to 20-year-olds. The assumption that younger adults are more liberal when it comes to global warming does not hold up; if anything, they are even more skeptical.

Consequently, young Americans are often unsupportive of government measures to prevent climate change that might harm the economy. Less than a third of those surveyed agreed with the statement, “Government should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of economic growth,” and only 12 percent strongly agreed with it. Again, the youngest survey respondents were more conservative than any other age group, with only 28 percent of 18 to 20-year-olds in agreement and eight percent in strong agreement with that statement. In contrast, other age groups varied between 30 percent and 34 percent in agreement and 11 percent to 14 percent in strong agreement. Not only are the newest voters less convinced of climate change as a reality; they are also less likely to support government funding of climate change solutions.

Full story

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 29, 2015 11:09 am

Of course they’re skeptical. They were told the earth would be ruined by the time they were adults, and it didn’t happen.

Reply to  RH
April 29, 2015 11:43 am

They were counting on not having to get a job.
Now they need one and nobody’s hiring.

Reply to  RH
April 29, 2015 8:08 pm

I think you’re on to something there. Most of them have heard stories of imminent “global warming” catastrophe their entire lives. And they’re still waiting for it……..

Reply to  RH
April 29, 2015 8:49 pm

When 20-year-olds were 5 years old, the Y2K “problem” was supposed to wipe out bank accounts and drop planes out of the sky! Maybe such scaremongering to preschoolers imbued them with a good dose of cynical skepticism.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
April 30, 2015 3:57 am

You could be right. Most of us had to live for decades before learning that doomsday scenarios always fail, and always turn out to be a money/power grab by some conman/politician.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
April 30, 2015 11:09 am

I grew up during “duck and cover”. There’s a fear down here we can’t forget. Hasn’t got a name just yet. Always awake, always around,

Reply to  RH
May 3, 2015 5:50 pm

I was more convinced by the fact that it was supposed to be ruined before I was born. Several times.
I’m really glad to know there’s so many people of my generation who know how to use their brains.

April 29, 2015 11:12 am

Im not surprised that 18 year old people are sceptic to alarmistic claims of ongoing accelerating catastrophic global warming. After all there has been no warming in their life-time, 18 years.

Data Soong
Reply to  bjorn
April 29, 2015 11:45 am

great point, Bjorn!

Reply to  Data Soong
April 29, 2015 9:07 pm

Yes. Great point, Bjorn! There has been no warming in the last 18 years except that 13 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.
Keep cherry picking your data!

Reply to  Data Soong
April 29, 2015 10:08 pm

18 is a cherry-pick, so what about 5000, 130,000 or 4,000,000 years? Or is it valid to cherry-pick 1850 only? Which was so cold people died of hunger when lakes froze in late June?

Reply to  Data Soong
April 29, 2015 11:22 pm

Hey, Bill use your brain. If last 18 had tied for warmest on record there still would have been no warming. Warming means to get warmer not stay the same temp. So there is no”except”

Reply to  Data Soong
April 30, 2015 3:36 am

Our millenium is the coldest millenium of the whole Holocene (12,000 years). Chew on that cherry.

Reply to  Data Soong
April 30, 2015 3:38 am

According to the revised UAH satellite data, its been cooling slightly over those 18 years.

david smith
Reply to  Data Soong
April 30, 2015 6:28 am

You dont understand what a plateau is, do you?

Reply to  Data Soong
April 30, 2015 7:23 am

Warmest since when? And based on what shoddy instrumental data? By 1/100ths of a degree no less. Bill, what is the margin of error in such measurements? good grief.

Reply to  Data Soong
April 30, 2015 8:19 am

Hey Bill, simple question:
What record?
Certainly not the satellite records. That’s easily verifiable. Are you talking about the temperature station data? Data that barely accounts for 30% of the Earth’s land mass, which itself is only 30% of global surface area? Do you actually think that extrapolating data from 9% of total surface area (or 12 bristlecone pines for that matter) over mountains, oceans and icecaps is credible science? Seems to me that’s ‘fractional reserve’ climatology. And just as bankrupt as its namesake.
That said we both know that you don’t understand any of this. You’re just doing drive by trolling with someone else’s sound bites. But I’ll still give you a thousand dollars if you can manage to produce even a vaguely scientific sounding explanation of how YOU arrived at your conclusion, or why you believe its more correct than the 3 separate satellite records that contradict it.

Reply to  Data Soong
April 30, 2015 8:45 am

In addition to the above points, earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age for the last 150 years, or so. Absent the randomness of some natural variables, EVERY year for the last fifteen decades would have held the record as “the warmest year” up until that time. It should not be surprising when there is a string of the “hottest years” on record. When the trend is up, where do you find the highest values?

Michael Urry ( Gosport Mike )
Reply to  bjorn
April 29, 2015 11:46 am

Nice to learn that many of the younger age group are not being fooled by fraudulent scientists and politicians – this may well help my great grandchildren when they grow up. For now it appears that their elders are ruling the roost and no one knows how to stop them

Reply to  Michael Urry ( Gosport Mike )
April 29, 2015 1:40 pm

Science advances one death at a time.

Reply to  bjorn
April 29, 2015 1:00 pm

On a purely activist level, a concerted Inbound Marketing effort to direct the other 50% to WUWT should tip these figures even further away from the;
Doom and gloom, CAGW camp-following; “A sandal, I found a sandal, its a sign!” – cymbal thrashers.
I had an opportunity to discuss this recently on ANZAC day with a 20 year old :”sceptic” and intro him to WUWT. He was most appalled to learn the obscene levels of worldwide expenditure on CAGW promotion, especially the gross income of the recently resigned IPCC director…

Harry Passfield
April 29, 2015 11:37 am

Bearing in mind that there is still a (small) majority of (what I would call) school-leavers who still believe the AGW propaganda – even though there has been no meaningful global warming throughout their educational years – and seeing as how the message has been pumped into them so forcefully for for so long, it’s quite newsworthy to see that it is only 55%.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Harry Passfield
April 30, 2015 5:43 am

Agreed. Given the propaganda they must have been subjected to it is a bit of a surprise. Unless it is just teen awkwardness where you do the opposite of what you are told.

Reply to  Gerry, England
April 30, 2015 4:00 pm

Rebels with a Pause!

April 29, 2015 11:45 am

Given the last two winters in the eastern US, east of the Mississippi, where two-thirds of the American population lives…should one have expected a different result?

April 29, 2015 11:48 am

I think the 20-29 year olds were raised on “save the rainforest” in their primary and secondary education. Now rainforests are being turned into palm oil and sugarcane plantations for biofuels. Is it any wonder they feel like they are being fed a line?

Reply to  sean2829
May 1, 2015 10:24 am

We need nuclear energy. Save the rain forests and pacify the algorians.

Bruce Cobb
April 29, 2015 11:49 am

Clearly they just aren’t “communicating climate change” effectively. Bigger bullhorns?

Steve Case
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 29, 2015 12:03 pm

That’s why President Obama has Luther.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 29, 2015 12:28 pm

“More cowbell.”

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  mikerestin
April 29, 2015 2:25 pm

Cowbells are a valuable and nice sounding cultural heritage of my country and don’t deserve to be abused for this ridiculous anti-CO2 religion… 😉
BTW: I think it’s simply the never-ending and tiresome “overselling” of the “CO2 is the reason for every bad thing on Earth” story that will piss off the more intelligent young people from a gullible belief in the CO2 myth.
Consequently there is some hope at last: Every extreme exaggeration will lead to its own destruction finally… 🙂

Reply to  mikerestin
April 29, 2015 2:36 pm

Gentle Tramp,
I hear your frustration. I am a drummer, and playing the cowbell to Latin, African, and Afro-Cuban music is one of the greatest pleasures in life.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  mikerestin
April 29, 2015 2:44 pm

Well Max, I mean REAL cowbells of course… 😉

Reply to  mikerestin
April 29, 2015 5:15 pm
Reply to  mikerestin
April 29, 2015 7:35 pm

I’ve fallen in with the wheelbarrow when I tried to hold the wheelbarrow back after tilting it beyond the board.
One wheelbarrow full is nothing compared to a sh-twagon full.
Ah well, such is the life of a farm laborer. I treated myself to buying an ice cream cone at the local dairy after we finished cleaning the barn.
It was OK. They were a working dairy farm selling ice cream on the side and the young ladies dipping the cones barely noticed; unlike the Sunday afternoon families in their Sunday finery out for a countryside drive. I had lots of room while waiting in line.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 30, 2015 9:31 am

And mo money!

Paul Westhaver
April 29, 2015 11:51 am

It has been 20 years now that we’ve been hearing that the world is coming to an end. The entire lives of undergraduate students everywhere have been sturated with doom and gloom, and there has been no doom nor gloom. So these yooung adults have every reason to be skeptical, not just of global warming but of science in general.
For 20 years the field of science has been cr@p. I bet enrollment in science programs plummet based on a general contempt for it.

Steve Case
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
April 29, 2015 12:06 pm

Dr.Hansen’s congressional testimony was in 1988, Twenty-seven years ago this June.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Steve Case
April 29, 2015 12:26 pm

Ffffuuuuuggggggge Wow. how time flies when you are being oppressed.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Steve Case
April 29, 2015 5:02 pm

Right, and let’s remember that Dr. Hansen’s 1988 testimony was an unadulterated crock.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  Steve Case
April 29, 2015 7:44 pm

Oppressed? I assume most contributors here are (white) US or UK, so can you cite how you are oppressed versus other parts of the world and times in history? I’m really confused. I keep looking at the definition of oppressed and new highs in the Nasdaq, SP and dollar strength and curious who is oppressed. Or do I need a new dictionary.
[Math, science, and facts do not oppress. Inflation does oppress. And impress the gullible. .mod]

george e. smith
Reply to  Steve Case
April 29, 2015 9:51 pm

Leland Neraho
April 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm
Oppressed? I assume most contributors here are (white) US or UK, …..”””””
Well Leland, last time I checked, the vast majority of persons on this planet are NOT white, and living in lands that in fact contain very few white persons.
So if there is oppression it can hardly be due to white people.
I’m not even sure there is even one country on earth that is being “ruled” by a minority of white people. So the oppressors are likely not white.
Well California has a white minority population; but there isn’t any one non white population that is a majority. And from the California experience, I would say that each group oppresses their own. That certainly is the prevailing pattern in California’s agricultural industry where “coyotes” of all species prey on their own kind.
Nobody crossing the California border, seeks out a white guy in a homburg to find a job.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 30, 2015 6:38 am

When govt demands that poor people not get electricity to improve their lives and that could save the lives of their children, I would call that being oppressed.

Ben Of Houston
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
April 29, 2015 6:24 pm

Not only environmental, but medical as well. This entire generation has been constantly barraged with claims that we are all going to die and that you should do precisely certain things to improve health, with all but a few of them being changed constantly (often being directly contradicted several times in quick succession), and all supported in the name of “Science”. On the other hand, meaningful discoveries in physics and chemistry have stagnated. To a layman, these fields are indistinguishable from the cutting edge of their parents’ college years.
Once you grow up and see a few things: We aren’t all dead now, oil hasn’t run out, things were worse in the past, people have lived easily with a multitude of environments and diets, population growth has decreased, Catastrophe of the week X never happened, and mass starvation just hasn’t happened. Given this, it’s no wonder that so many begin to distrust all of science, as cutting-edge popular science as portrayed by the media has been proven to be false almost universally
This is the same root cause as the anti-vaccine movement.
They aren’t climate skeptics. They are science-cynics.
This is not necessarily a good thing.

Reply to  Ben Of Houston
April 29, 2015 11:26 pm

That sounds logical Ben. Sad, but logical. Precautionary principle without borders leads into no good.

Reply to  Ben Of Houston
April 30, 2015 10:51 am

“Scientists” yapping about “consensus” fed the media machine all to happily, like Hannsen there. The problem is “scientists” who pimp out their brains and their logical thinking to the service of argument by authority. Climategate was only the tip-top bit of the iceberg of politicized “science” with all too much taxpayer-extorted “research” money going to feed the beast. Like King Henry’s counselor. We ask why bother with the cover of “consensus science”, if the ruling cartel has already decided to use socialism to consolidate its totalitarian “governance” regime?
Search and read: Michael Crichton’s transcript of a talk: “Aliens Cause Global Warming”.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 1, 2015 6:07 am

lets see in the 50’s it was the “Red Peril” in the 60’s it escalated to full nuclear Armageddon, later in the 60’s it was those damn hippies with war protests, drugs , “Silent Spring” and “The Population Bomb”, then we went into There’s an Ice-age coming for a while. I was kind of tuned-out during the 80’s but I’m sure there was some kind of impending doom du jour then. So it’s been pretty much constant impending doom for as long as I can remember.

Leo Geiger
April 29, 2015 11:54 am

Related to a wider mistrust of science in general:

The entrenched mistrust amongst Americans for science and scientists extends far beyond climate change. According to a recent Pew survey, there is a large opinion gap between the American public and scientists on the factual accuracy of issues ranging from the safety of GMOs to Darwinian evolution to the safety of childhood vaccines.

Americans are “science skeptics” as much as “climate skeptics”. Just add climate science to the list with vaccines and evolution.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Leo Geiger
April 29, 2015 12:22 pm

Trolling again, Leo?

Leo Geiger
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 29, 2015 12:54 pm

I suppose the Harvard Political Review was “trolling” when it made that point.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 29, 2015 1:21 pm

No, it’s true. It’s not that they are skeptics of “science” its’ that they are skeptics of what they are being told about science.
The communication they get about science is usually abused to heck and back for someone’s pet cause. Instead of getting “scientists found new way to manufacture battery technology, less fire-prone/12% more capacity/nano batteries to power cities will be coming in 10-15 years” they get “THIS BATTERY TECH WILL REVOLUTIONIZE EVERYTHING AND WILL MAKE YOU PEE DOLLAR BILLS AND LIVE FOR 1,000 YEARS! GIVE US $2 MILLION IN GRANT MONEY BEFORE THIS OFFER EXPIRES!” Then, in a few years when the new science gets there, it ACTUALLY looks like the former. It’s not bad, but they still have herpes and will die at 70.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 29, 2015 2:29 pm

Perhaps Leo and the writer of article in the Harvard Political Review needs to apply a little more critical thinking. NON-scientific fear mongering is from anti-GMOs and anti-vaccine movements. Scientific fear mongering is coming from AGW Climate science.
When spectacular-unproven-fear-mongering is made based on non-science, it does not hurt science. When spectacular-unproven-fear-mongering are made based on science, it gravely hurts science.
BTW conflating well established and proven Evolutionary theory with unproven-fear-mongering nonsense indicates a tragedy of ignorance.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 29, 2015 6:29 pm

Alx, that’s the point!
Laymen can’t tell the difference between good science and bad, so they are beginning to mistrust all of it.
I have said many times in the past that the “health” movement is the primary cause of the anti-vaccine movement. When you have been told “X” is good or bad for you in quick succession (where X is the set of every behavior in existence), all supported by the latest research and broadcasted by the media, it becomes that you disbelieve all medical research.
We are seeing the same cynical eye in climate science. These barely-out-of-high-school youngsters aren’t reviewing the science and deciding that they could model something better on the back of their hand. They are keeping their hands over their wallets.

Reply to  Leo Geiger
April 29, 2015 1:18 pm

You seem to have missed the part that on this particular topic, the youngest group is the most skeptical. Arguing that US citizens are skeptics in general is irrelevant honestly. This wasn’t a comparison to places with more or less skeptics. It was a post comparing various ages within one country, and on this topic the youngest are the most skeptical.

Leo Geiger
Reply to  Randy
April 29, 2015 3:14 pm

The Harvard Political Review seemed to think it was relevant. They had the article I quoted above linked to the one WUWT highlighted, right below where they say “Read our analysis of the most recent HPOP poll to find out more.”

Reply to  Randy
May 1, 2015 6:16 am

My suspicion is youngsters tend to rebel against the previous Status Quo, and they’ve been brain-washed into thinking being a Warmist is part of the Oldster establishment. It’s an interesting prelimiary finding but we’ll have to see if it’s a trend or a fad.

Ian H
Reply to  Leo Geiger
April 29, 2015 1:59 pm

Certainly there are some science doubters in the US. But are the science doubters climate skeptics? Climate skeptics tend to be more informed about the science than the average American. And a bunch of us have PhDs in science.

Reply to  Ian H
April 29, 2015 2:09 pm

I doubt warmunism because the claims of the climate modelers are scientifically impossible…Just a medicine show delivered with a computer voice.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  Ian H
April 29, 2015 7:55 pm

Ian, I am assuming you would agree that there are likely two outcomes, endless Co2 is harmless or beneficial and there is no issue to worry about, or its not harmless, and on the margin steady or increasing contributions by man to existing and uncontrollable inputs are harmful, and therefore less CO2 would be better. Yes? That means that a bunch of scientists will be right and a bunch wrong. It doesn’t mean that you are certainly in the right. The issue is which group to bet on. Certainly betting on the majority of economists would have been a bad bet, so perhaps your (minority?) view is correct. That said, the opinions that support the status quo and ignore risks (war) or justify “good things” (strong but false economies) tend to be wrong. My own belief that skeptics are wrong increases when I see comments linking climate analysis and Islamofascism etc.
In the end though, we are talking about an amazingly beautiful and complex little marble (unless you live in Oklahoma maybe) that we probably don’t want to risk messing up. Or are you willing to wager your future forecasts on 20 billion people that will be coming over the next century.

Ian H
Reply to  Ian H
April 29, 2015 10:37 pm

Leland – you are trying to set this up as a false dichotomy whereas it is a matter of degree. Clearly CO_2 is a greenhouse gas. But from what I can see the size of its contribution to warming is simply too small to worry about. A fly landing on the rail of a cruise liner will cause it to list. Should we worry about it? Of course not! The science is never solved so we should keep an eye on it. But for the next couple of hundred years we really need to concentrate on real problems and not imaginery ones.
In particular standards of living throughout the world, and in particular in Africa, need to be raised urgently. That is the most serious and urgent problem we face as a species. That requires that we build a bunchaton of coal fired power stations in Africa as quickly as possible. A hundred years from now we could think of replacing them with something cleaner like nuclear power, but the most urgent thing is to fully develop those places that are not developed and bring to those people the benefits that the rest of us in developed nations enjoy. Benefits like clean drinking water; sanitation; education; transport infrastructure; stable government; equal rights for women; justice; democracy; and an end to dictatorship corruption poverty disease wars repression and fear.
And that is what frustrates me most. Concern over this silly non-problem is diverting us and indeed blocking us from sorting out these serious issues. The stand of greens who wish to block developement in underdeveloped countries is particular immoral – obscenely immoral even. It is responsible for millions of deaths and ongoing misery and disease in a large fraction of the human race.
In my opinion Greens are dangerous ideological fanatics who seem to think nothing of killing millions of people and cause ongoing human misery and pain in the name of their cause. They want to rule us all, in the name of the planet to be sure, but they mean to rule nonetheless. They would condemn millions to poverty and early death, and forbid all human progress. All justified by trumped up concern over a non-problem. They are worse than the communists who also no doubt believed fervently in their cause. They wanted to rule us all too. But at least the communists justified themselves in the name of the people. The more fanatical greens on the other hand think people are a disease that should be eradicated.

Reply to  Ian H
April 30, 2015 6:42 am

Leland, if you are seriously arguing that we should do nothing until we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it won’t harm the economy, then you have set up a prescription for never doing anything.
We’d still be living in caves if our ancestors had been as afraid of change as you are.
The earth is remarkably resilient. The minor perturbations we place on it are not noticed at all.

Julian Williams in Wales
Reply to  Leo Geiger
April 29, 2015 2:27 pm

Maybe they mistrust science because it has become the tool of green-agenda-bigots, alarmists, money makers and political extremists? Maybe the effect of over hyping and splashing money around like confetti, and calling opponents dXXXXXXrs has had one effect; it has put the young off science just at a time when the world needs the wisdom of science to manage an overcrowded planet.

Reply to  Julian Williams in Wales
April 29, 2015 3:59 pm

Why single out science? They know that everyone in society puts self interest before honesty. It is rare to see a politician even attempt a direct and honest answer. Priests are widely suspect near kids.They know that advertising, and public relations are wide spread and well paid careers. There is CAGW using all the same techniques that they have seen all their lives. They may by some standards be poorly educated, but they are not stupid.

Reply to  Julian Williams in Wales
May 3, 2015 6:27 pm

Yes Julian, I agree with most of what you state. Population growth in some countries mainly some of the Asian and African countries, seems to be regulated by genocide and displacing subsistence farmers or hunter and gatherers, (H & G, if there are any still in existence?) I just think that global warming and all the trash fed to us via the media and in some university courses is a sign. We can’t control the weather, volcanic eruptions, big storms, earthquakes (like in Nepal) and countries and politicians who want to blame something like us, for these catastrophic global events. Anyway, we build homes in the wrong places, like flood plains, live over tectonic seismic areas, volcanoes, and on shore lines. We can’t control our orbit, or if meteorites or asteroids crash into us, some diseases, and quite honestly, we have over exploited soils and use of water for too long. The latter can be corrected, but answer me this. Why in heaven’s sake people build large swimming pools when they live only a mile from the sea, or in regions were the summer temps rarely go above 30 C. Oh I am getting old and skeptical about lots of things, and how some governments and politicians are trying to control our thinking and supply of correct information.

richard verney
Reply to  Leo Geiger
April 29, 2015 3:24 pm

CAGW has had a serious impact on the credibility of scientist generally.
As many have commented here for many a year, all the wild warmist CAGW claims undermines science in general, since the warmists are activists and do not apply ordinary scientific rigour to their pet theory. Consensus science and post modern science is not science and unfortunately real science and real scientists are reaping what the warmist scaremongers such as Hansen, Mann and the other IPCC lead authors etc. have sown.
Science is the poorer for that, but it was inevitable, and that is what the survey you cite has shown. .

Pat Frank
Reply to  richard verney
April 29, 2015 5:06 pm

You sure got that right, Richard. Science is going to take a big hit, when the AGW house of cards finally falls. I just hope it’s accompanied by a very angry house-cleaning of the hierarchy in all the scientific societies.

Dave Worley
Reply to  Leo Geiger
April 29, 2015 5:34 pm

Severe damage has been done to the general practice of science, and the public trust in same, There is a similar problem in Pharmaceuticals. In food science, there is a problem with competing claims about whether coffee, sugar, you name it, is good or bad for your health.
Perhaps it is good that the public no longer trusts science. Maybe more will study and learn for themselves rather than conforming to some consensus of “experts”.

Reply to  Leo Geiger
April 29, 2015 6:56 pm

It is arguable that the most damaging effect of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd is the damage they have done and are doing to the reputation and public view of Science.

Rod Carlson
Reply to  Ox AO
April 30, 2015 6:15 pm

Geez I didn’t know that science was vain and concerned about her image. In fact I didn’t know that science needed the fervor, faith, and adherents like religion. Its kind of like a God to you guys? I’m an electrical engineer and I could give a [trimmed] about “science”. I don’t believe that science sits in academic halls of vain institutions anyway. And I’m not an athiest so I don’t treat it like my replacement God.
The reason I don’t believe in global warming is because its lies and sensationalism. Enviornmentalist are paranoid, end of world mongers that have not a clue about Le-Chatlier’s principle or any other scientific principle. If they understood what positive and negative feedback meant in a stable loop, then maybe they’d understand that the world operates on a negative feedback (stable one). Le-Chatliers is just another extension of ignored science that doesn’t apply to environmentalist. And the only ones who really give a shit anyway are people that want “Science” to be a new religion and god to replace the larger context or question. And that question is if the world consists of unprovable but nevertheless axiomatic truths, who or what enforces those rules? Only people who’d rather not ask this question to themselves (ignorant athiest) worry about “science” having its feelings hurt because nobody believes in here anymore.
Besides that like many smart people have said, “science” was stolen when it became a government lobby. Nobody is scientist who makes a career with their hand out to grants and loans. Want to know the truth seekers? They do it for free and it was true a 100 years ago, and its still true today. The reason you don’t hear from those people is because the squelch level on the radio is so high in loud mouth competitors who want the grant that nobody hears the wise man anymore. Wisdom predates science, quite frankly science is just a subset of it. And if “wisdom” herself couldn’t stop fools from disagreeing, how would you expect something lesser like science to do any better? Geez I sure hope people love “wisdom” and don’t second guess her. I mean if everyone foolish keeps calling themselves wise, will I doubt wisdom? Foolish comedy along with AGW. Along with science as a religion. And most of wisdom didn’t come about by following the “scientific method”, quite frankly most things of greatness came about by non deductive hunches and guesses. Maybe somebodies wet dream about a helix for DNA or maybe I don’t know, maybe the master librarian sharing a great truth with someone. And then of course all the egg heads jump on board to prove it with “scientific method”. Again whats missing here is a love of “science” period, only egg heads think like that. Real dumb [trimmed] eggheads.
[Language! .mod]

April 29, 2015 11:58 am

Damn that common core…. we didn’t really want to produce critical thinking. ….

Reply to  wally
April 29, 2015 7:18 pm

More likely was parental influence…

Kalifornia Kook
April 29, 2015 11:58 am

I had assumed that our school children were being brainwashed. I have several very smart young friends that encouraged my belief. (They all now attend UC universities, except for the one finishing his PhD at Cern.) Now you are giving me hope. All that concerted effort, and still 46% are not drinking the Kool-Aid. Wow. Even at their worst, public schools are failing.

April 29, 2015 12:04 pm

Of course they are skeptical. They watch POTUS and the military hyping Global Warming as the greatest threat to humans while watching wars around the world, damage caused by natural disasters and riots in the streets while trying to find a decent job. No wonder they are skeptical. Global Warming is likely very low on the list for all but the most comfortable and secure.

Leonard Jones
April 29, 2015 12:04 pm

All four of you guys make great points! RH As I am nearing 60 years old, I have been
through this cycle 3 times. At least according to the alarmists who proclaimed the world would
be dead in 10 years.
mikerestin Those with degrees in social studies or the high school grads with no trade
school experience are going to be the hardest hit since even the old reliable blue
collar jobs are gone. The deindustrialization of the developed nations has been
achieved in a staggeringly short period of time. And this is largely a result of
insane energy policy.
bjorn It is ironic that the people polled have never seen a warming trend in their
entire lifetimes. Direct observation may have created a generation of skeptics.
Harry Passfield If by school leavers you mean dropouts, that may explain why these
numbers are not higher than they could be. Dropouts are the embodiment of
LIV’s (Low Information Voters.) Or at least low information types.

Reply to  Leonard Jones
April 29, 2015 12:25 pm

What ever blue collar jobs that do remain will be be filled by unionized illegal aliens.
Illegals will be easier to keep in line.
They understand payoffs and force since they’ve seen political corruption most of their lives.

Winnipeg Boy
Reply to  mikerestin
April 29, 2015 12:36 pm

Not true. My white, 18 yr old son just got a job at a concrete plant – voluntary union. Although he did mention that he wishes he paid more attention in HS spanish class to communicate with coworkers. In that job now, will take train conducting school for 6 weeks and be WAY better off than his older college brother currently amassing debt (i did what i could).
Blue collar jobs are out there, and they pay well. Not everybody needs a degree and a desk job.

Reply to  mikerestin
April 29, 2015 6:15 pm

Yep they’re out there. And plenty of them too. I live in an area with a relatively low cost of living and I made nearly $70,000 last year driving with a class A CDL. Plus get a considerable break on taxes because of Per Diem. Pick up any newspaper or go to any appropriate job hunting website and you’ll find plenty of trucking jobs being offered. There are good paying jobs available for those that are capable and willing to work.

Steve P
Reply to  mikerestin
April 30, 2015 7:42 am

rah April 29, 2015 at 6:15 pm
What about the railroads, which can haul at a lower cost? Is that tax break a subsidy? What about the safety issues of all those big rigs on the road with drowsy drivers? I can’t even read the road signs when I’m surrounded by the towering semis, most of which are speeding.

April 29, 2015 12:05 pm

one small step for mankind……….

Clovis Marcus
April 29, 2015 12:05 pm

The unasked question that would have tipped the balance is of the 55%, how many believe that we are on the brink of catastrophe and urgent action is required.

Steve Case
Reply to  Clovis Marcus
April 29, 2015 12:11 pm

The political left plays a bait and switch routine between global warming and catastrophic global warming.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 30, 2015 11:59 am

Well said Steve. Most of us are happy to live in an era that is warmer than the Little Ice Age. Cold is deadly.
The moderate global warming that has progressed over the last 200 hundred years is a wonderful thing for life on this planet. I doubt, based on the fossil record, that we have yet reached optimum life-supporting temperatures. So here’s hoping that the pause ends and a little more warming occurs.

April 29, 2015 12:17 pm

American voters are not as dumb as Obama thinks they are.
For instance, Gruber called out the wrong voters.
The only stupid voters that actually voted for the ACA were democrats in congress… and POTUS agreed.
When the stupid American voters voted they dumped congress.
We’d have changed presidents too if the Obama supporting msm were honest.
But, it does look like maybe some teachers and parents are providing supplemental science and math information to the children that “can handle the truth!”

Retired Engineer
April 29, 2015 12:18 pm

Alas, opinions do not matter. Folks in power want to stay in power and they will say or do anything to remain there. Count the headlines. My take is 10:1 on the Alarmist side. Follow the money. Posters here are happy when science disproves another part of the scam, but this is and never was about science. Power, money, perks dominate. al-Gore has made millions on this (who says he is dumb?)
So, KK, you are right, brainwashing, but not really necessary. Them what has the gold first make the rules, mostly so they get more gold.
Climate Science: Using government grants to go to Important Conferences in Faraway Places, staying in Fancy Hotels, dining in Mighty Fine Resaurants, and attending meetings on how to get more grants.

April 29, 2015 12:19 pm

Younger people are more computer savvy, and better able to look up the actual data for themselves. The more one sees of the actual data, the less one is susceptible to climate alarmism propaganda. For example, global sea ice area:

David S
April 29, 2015 12:19 pm

With warmists having infiltrated all facets of our important institutions in particular our schools and universities these figures represent a monumental failure. Fortunately this younger generation gets a lot of their opinion from the internet and there is considerable number of sites similar to this that refutes every new global warming/ climate change claim. The climate has also helped by doing the exact opposite to what’s been predicted, with record snows occurring in defiance of warmist predictions. The warmist movement is using global key opinion leaders such as Obama and the Pope as a desperate measure to continue to perpetuate this scam but the people are getting tired of the dire message without any real world evidence. Whilst there is warmists whose financial well being depend on it and skeptics whose moral well being ( like ourselves) depend on it there is a huge percentage of the global population who thinks ” Who cares? “. The reality the global warming movement is one global leader away from total collapse. A new US president , a German Chancellor, or a UK prime minister who is a skeptic could single handed bring the AGW movement to collapse. I suspect if one leader was to come out then others would quickly follow. It is a pity that someone like Thatcher wasn’t in power when she changed her mind on the subject.

Reply to  David S
April 29, 2015 2:06 pm

“A new US president , a German Chancellor, or a UK prime minister who is a skeptic could single handed bring the AGW movement to collapse.”
Forget about Germany. Country is covered by a 7 mile thick layer of propaganda twice as expensive per head as the BBC, all Bundestag parties have iron warmunist determination. SPD co-chancellor Gabriel just invented new punishment tax for lignite power plants, wind turbinization of countryside continues relentlessly, looks like an extermination project to me.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  DirkH
April 29, 2015 2:39 pm

True, true – the Germans are very prone to totalitarian ideologies and simple explanations. Therefore they are such ardent CAGW believers. Sorry to say, but they will need a full-blown new ice age before they can realize their stupidity in this matter…

Reply to  DirkH
April 29, 2015 3:06 pm

Gentle Tramp
April 29, 2015 at 2:39 pm
“True, true – the Germans are very prone to totalitarian ideologies and simple explanations.”
You totally misunderstand what I’m saying. We are not all Lederhosen wearing caricatures from The Producers.
The very existence of the 8 bn EUR a year propaganda broadcasters proves the opposite of what you are insinuating.

Reply to  DirkH
April 30, 2015 7:05 am

There are plenty of german skeptics and plenty who never wanted any part of the European Union. The propaganda that Germans are completely on board with this ruse is not true

Reply to  DirkH
April 30, 2015 10:36 am

Well the German leadership is on board with this and as usual the poorest are the one most effected. On the rich are making money because they are behind the “green” schemes in the first place.

April 29, 2015 12:21 pm

I’m ashamed that my generation of useful idiots are the most easily brainwashed by this obvious scam. i hope this is true. Out with the old and in with the new. The Jon Stewart generation of college know- it-all drones that can’t think for themselves are pushing 40 now. It’s a shame i have to come to a website to even discuss this issue without getting quesy at how easy manipulated my generation is. I will also avoid getting in a angry scarf fight with the more aggressive male type know it alls.

Reply to  Charlie
April 29, 2015 12:22 pm

* generation

nutso fasst
April 29, 2015 12:24 pm

Please don’t accept the redefinition of “climate change” as “human-caused catastrophic climate disruption.”

Reply to  nutso fasst
April 29, 2015 12:57 pm

Don’t accept Climate Change – they shoved Global Warming down our throat for about 20 years; they proclaimed it, they own it.

April 29, 2015 12:31 pm

People who try to indoctrinate young schoolchildren forget that credulous young children become cynical teenagers.

Reply to  Curt
April 29, 2015 12:58 pm

Or, they also become fanatical Hitler Youth.

April 29, 2015 12:37 pm

Thank the Lord for the natural rebelliousness of youth! Where their parents were smoking pot and chilling out, this generation have come to grips with reality. There’s hope for Humanity yet.

Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 12:53 pm

Standard “skeptic” tactics – when you lose on science, look to win on public opinion. Good thing there are some fossil fuel billionaires willing to fund deliberate obfuscation of the facts.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 1:00 pm

Delusional as usual. Good to see some things don’t change.

James Allison
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 29, 2015 1:35 pm

Sir Harry. What exactly are these facts that you say are being obfuscated by fossil fuel billionaires?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 1:05 pm

@Harry…standard AGW religion promoter = purposeful deceit (lie), such as the wonderful ‘science’ of the Hockey Schtick, Himalaya’s lose their ice by 2035, and refusing FOIA requests (Einstein would spit in their face).

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 1:29 pm

LOL at the thought of skeptics “loosing on the science”. Someone isn’t paying much attention to that which questions their faith.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 1:46 pm

good to know that a near flat observed surface temperature curve of 18 years are funded by the fossil fuel billionaires. Even our climate got corrupted by them and convinced to halt the speed of global warming! insert /ironic tags here

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 1:50 pm


[…]when you lose on science, look to win on public opinion.

Is that like getting a consensus? Cook and Lewandowsky anyone?

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 1:52 pm

Show me some factual information showing skeptics receiving a large amount of funding from oil interests or keep your trap shut. If you actually looked you would find exactly the opposite that the oil interests are funding alarmists not skeptics. So put up or shut up.

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  Matt Bergin
April 29, 2015 7:12 pm

[Reply: an article on “Climate Change Denial”? With no explanation posted? No, thanks. Anyone interested can find it at SciAm. -mod.]

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  Matt Bergin
April 30, 2015 8:18 am

Sorry, I tried to answer your question with a link but the mods killed it. As they observe, you could find it but you could have found it before and chose not to,. so I fear this dialogue is a waste of time.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 2:00 pm

Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 at 12:53 pm
“Standard “skeptic” tactics – when you lose on science, look to win on public opinion.”
So, you have found a way to demonstrate predictive skill of the climate models?
Well, I didn’t think so.
We are winning every day, Sirry, because the climate models can by their very nature not have predictive skill. Warmunist science simply ignores all accepted knowledge about the limitations of modeling, and gets away with it through a dumbing down via the media.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t make their models actually work.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 2:39 pm

Very nice demonstration of one key Alinski-ism – ascribing the nefarious tactics that YOU are using to your opponent. Textbook! Well done!
Losing on science and looking to win on public opinion are the very core and essence of what the CAGW crowd has been doing for decades. Yeah, I can already hear the response — peer reviewed papers, blah, blah, blah. Firstly, there are thousands of peer reviewed papers showing how incredibly shaky (and sometimes downright fraudulent) the science foundations are that supposedly support CAGW (or ACC or whatever the latest label is). Secondly, the CAGW/ACC believers have utterly corrupted the peer review process at a number of key climate related journals, thereby significantly skewing the “peer reviewed science”.
So, I’m sorry but I believe strongly that you lose big-time on that assertion.
Moving on for the sake of brevity…
The whole “big oil funding skeptics” meme has been demonstrated to be false so many times on so many websites that I’m surprised any of the CAGW acolytes still utter that clearly and demonstrably false narrative.
So, my opinion and count on your post is 0 for 2.
But it’s just my opinion, for what it’s worth…

Pat Frank
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 5:24 pm

Here’s your side winning on the science, SHF. Enjoy your inadvertant irony.
There hasn’t been a physically meaningful climate projection, ever. Not one. Climate modeling is not a physical science, climate modelers are not physical scientists.
If anything, they’re a set of Platonist philosophers elaborating climate axiomatics, who have hermetically sealed themselves away from the pollution of crude measurement and the insult of physical uncertainty.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 5:43 pm

If they already have their billions, why would they have to fund “obfuscation” ?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 6:19 pm

Sir Harry what is it about the billionaire activists that created the IPCC makes them less toxic than the ones you don’t like? I mean it’s not like Stong, Soros, Gore, Brown have given up all but a modest pension to the poor and become saints. “Sir” William the royal family is like a billionaire’s club public relations jobbers for the International green movement. What makes those billionaire blockheads less toxic than the ones you don’t like?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 30, 2015 6:51 am

What facts?
The fact that arctic ice is recovering?
The fact that Antarctic is setting records?
The fact that there has been no warming for over 18 years? (With statistically insignificant cooling over the last 10)
The fact that all of the models over predict warming compared to the real world?
What are these alleged facts that reality is supposed to be obfuscating?

April 29, 2015 1:28 pm

Please don’t forget that the issue here is CATASTROPHIC Anthropogenic Global Warming. Nothing less.
Global warming, made by man, and we’ll be doomed because of it.
Don’t let the swindlers off the hook so easily and let them control the discussion with “don’t you believe in climate change?”
Ask them – do you mean “CATASTROPHIC Anthropogenic Global Warming?”
And when they say er, yes, ask them what CO2 level is ideal. Ask them what temperature of the globe is ideal, ask them what plants breath, and if you don’t ask them anything else, ask them what the ECS to CO2 is! When they can’t answer any or all of those questions, ask them why is it, again, do they believe in CAGW?

Reply to  wallensworth
April 29, 2015 1:55 pm

Well first ask them, what *IS* the average temperature of the planet? Because, it can be computed, it’s just an average, right? On several occasions warmunists in fact made the mistake of publishing a number. It’s NOT pretty. Consistency is definitely a big problem when spinning a web of lies.
Collected notes:
Absolute temperature of the earth
Our global temperature is often depicted as an ‘anomaly’ ie +0.7 C …. so much above or below the mean global temperature: 2012 Press Release No. 943 World Meteorological Society. Globally-averaged temperatures in 2011 were estimated to be 0.40° Centigrade above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14°C.
But, the accepted ‘mean global temperature’ has apparently changed with time: From contemporary publications:
1988: 15.4°C
1990: 15.5°C
1999: 14.6°C
2004: 14.5°C
2007: 14.5°C
2010: 14.5°C
2012 14.0 °C
2013: 14.0°C
“Global Highlights
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).”
So we were at 12.9+0.78 = 13.68 deg C in NOV 2013.
So NCDC admits that in NOV 2013 the globe was coolest since beginning of Global Warming Research.
This Global Warming is sure a wicked thing.
1988: 15.4°C
Der Spiegel, based on data from NASA.
1990: 15.5°C
James Hansen and 5 other leading scientists claimed the global mean surface temperature was 15.5°C. Also Prof. Christian Schönwiese claimed the same in his book “Klima im Wandel“, pages 73, 74 and 136. 15.5°C is also the figure given by a 1992 German government report, based on satellite data.
1999 14.6°C
Global and Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies – Land and Marine Instrumental Records Jones Parker Osborn and Briffa
2004: 14.5°C
Professors Hans Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf in their book: “Der Klimawandel”, 1st edition, 2006, p 37, based on surface station data from the Hadley Center.
2007: 14.5°C
The IPCC WG1 AR4 (pg 6 of
2010: 14.5°C
Professors Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf in their book: Der Klimawandel, 7th edition, 2012, pg 37 based on surface station data.
2012 14.0 °C
Press Release No. 943 World Meteorological Society Globally-averaged temperatures in 2011 were estimated to be 0.40° Centigrade above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14°C.
2013 Wikipedia: 14.0°C
Absolute temperatures for the Earth’s average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global)

Leland Neraho
Reply to  DirkH
April 29, 2015 8:04 pm

Dirk– I clicked on the one link that looked reliable (noaa) and the first bullet points were as follows:
Global Highlights
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).
The global land surface temperature was 1.43°C (2.57°F) above the 20th century average of 5.9°C (42.6°F), the second highest for November on record, behind 2010. For the global oceans, the November average sea surface temperature was 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), tying with 2009 as the third highest for November.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the September–November period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F), the second warmest such period on record, behind only 2005.
The September–November worldwide land surface temperature was 1.08°C (1.94°F) above the 20th century average, the third warmest such period on record. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average, tying with 2009 and 2012 as the fourth warmest September–November on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date (January–November) was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), tying with 2002 as the fourth warmest such period on record.
I can’t tell for sure, but it doesn’t seem to be in sync with your statements above. “Second warmest period on record behind 2005…
A quick read implies warming, not cooling, can you show me where I am misunderstanding without quoting a blog?

Reply to  DirkH
April 29, 2015 8:33 pm

“However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F)….”
Following the Wikipedia link, I see that the link for that quotation is actually from a GISS page on the NASA website:
Thank you for that most helpful information. 🙂

george e. smith
Reply to  DirkH
April 29, 2015 10:13 pm

Dirk, Trenberth et al have many convinced that the whole earth is isothemal at around +15 deg. C and no place has varied by so much as one deg. C from that number for the last 165 years of record keeping.
Is it any wonder that the models can’t even follow the known measured data.
On average precisely nothing ever happens.

Reply to  DirkH
April 30, 2015 3:02 pm

“A quick read implies warming, not cooling, can you show me where I am misunderstanding without quoting a blog?”
Well, NOAA determines a temperature of 13.68 deg C in NOV 2013 as you have verified.
Various warmunist luminaries implied in 1988 and 1990 that at that time, the average temperature of the Earth’s surface was 15 deg C. This marked the start of political warmism.
So, during the course of political warmism, Earth has cooled by more than a degree.
Always happy to help.

Reply to  wallensworth
April 29, 2015 8:40 pm

No, that is not correct. That is what skeptics want to limit the discussion to, but not scientists. That is why scientists have looked at the impact of various CO2 emissions levels, and the impact on surface temperature and climate. That’s why you hear about the 2C scenario, the 4C scenario, etc. If temperatures climb 2C. that is not CAGW, but there would be adverse impacts in terms of drought in some areas, increased rainfall intensity in others, and some sea level rise.

Reply to  Chris
April 29, 2015 8:52 pm

Not true.
When so-called, self-selected, “scientists” want to get published (to keep their jobs at well-funded universities by Big Government) they use the +6, +8, +10 degree changes that “might happen” then project those temperature changes into their own field of study, then “project” the effect of “climate change on my field of study” and “send money to my field of study” for “further study in my field of study”.

Reply to  Chris
April 30, 2015 6:55 am

First off, those so called “scenarios” are based on the output of climate models. Climate models that fail miserably when trying to predict current conditions using current data.
Secondly, who gives a flying flip what the 2C, 4C, 8C scenario is when there isn’t a chance in hell of the earth warming up that much from CO2 alone.
BTW, the world was between 3C and 5C warmer than present multiple times in the last 10000 years, and the planet not only survived, it thrived.

John V. Wright
April 29, 2015 1:30 pm

“Every serious scientist says we need to act.” But not Prof. Lindzen, one of our most distinguished atmospheric scientists. Oh yes, of course, and there is (please add other names as we go)…

Bohdan Burban
Reply to  John V. Wright
April 29, 2015 5:09 pm

‘serious scientist’ must preclude those scientists that are happy, funny, light-hearted, etc., as well as those displaying neoteny, those who play violins in their time off, those that watch cartoons and those that dress up as Santa Clause every Christmas.

Reply to  John V. Wright
April 30, 2015 6:57 am

The warmists define scientist, as someone who agrees with them.
That’s how people with actual experience and degrees in related fields are declared non-scientists, but rail road engineers are declared scientists in full standing.

April 29, 2015 1:46 pm

Actually, the grand perversion of science committed by UN, governments, and government scientists, and the media, in the form of CO2AGW, told me SO much about how the world has been run for more than a century, as I dug deeper and deeper, thanks to all the hints offered by WUWT commenters. Maurice Strong, such a colorful character with such a telling biography, why don’t the state media cherish him every day? Because the system is eager to cover its tracks.
It has been a quite a ride, it is coming to an end now. The giant has feet of clay. Maybe someday we even get science that one can speak of back. Has been turned into a giant EBT card system lately.

george e. smith
Reply to  DirkH
April 29, 2015 10:17 pm

I assume you are describing the Everybody But Taxpayers card system. You have that in Germany too ??

Reply to  george e. smith
April 30, 2015 3:04 pm

We have a system called Hartz IV. It has a requirement to look for work though.

April 29, 2015 1:50 pm

And they don’t even know what an electric bill is or what it looks like.

more soylent green!
April 29, 2015 1:59 pm

Eighteen-plus years of AGW climate change hysterical propaganda and the majority are skeptics? Wow.

M Courtney
Reply to  more soylent green!
April 30, 2015 1:27 am

Not quite a majority but why would that be a surprise if it was?
“AGW climate change hysterical propaganda ” is an accurate term. It is so over the top and so one-sided that it isn’t persuasive.
Think of it like the Doctor analogy so beloved of the doom-mongers.
-This Doctor demands that you prioritise his diagnosis as the most important issue in your life.
-This Doctor points to symptoms that are imperceptible.
-This Doctor predicts further symptoms that resolutely fail to appear.
-And this Doctor refuses to allow any consideration of a second opinion; rants about how their all paid to disagree with him just sound a little paranoid.
Would you not want a better Doctor too?

Reply to  more soylent green!
April 30, 2015 3:58 am

It’s been around a lot longer than eighteen years now, I can assure you. I started to hear this stuff while I was in high school, my father warned me it was likely to be a crock used to jack up energy prices, before websites even existed. I started getting into arguments at school about it, 26 years or so later, I’m still at it. Ten years ago I nearly lost the faith and crumpled just to get along but then climategate got some stiffness in my spine. Some would say it’s been a lifetimes work, but I’m not done yet. There is another generation coming along that has to be taught to think for themselves.
As for the 55% of believers, I note there was no ‘undecided’ category. That’s telling enough – I would say the survey is skewed based on it being an unfashionable position.
I always prefer to look at actions rather than words – like takeoff of voluntary carbon permits. Surely if you believed the world was coming to an end if you didn’t take action, and action only cost a few bucks, like upsizing your McDonald’s meal, if you really believed, you’d buy the permits.
What is the take up on carbon offsets for flights and other voluntary schemes? About 1 or 2% – 1/5th the rate of green voters round my parts.
They don’t believe at all. They just want a tool to control behaviour of others.

Richard M
April 29, 2015 2:04 pm

Guess who gets to shovel the snow in many households. The teens are much closer to nature than mom and dad. In addition, they’ve probably been told no to many requests because it will “harm the planet”. Yet, they’ve only seen cooling in most places.

April 29, 2015 2:24 pm

Of course they are skeptical, most of them were not born the last time the world warmed.

April 29, 2015 2:26 pm

Give them free iPhones and offers of waived student debt and then let’s see the survey results.

April 29, 2015 2:40 pm

Young Americans
by David Bowie

george e. smith
Reply to  Max Photon
April 29, 2015 10:21 pm

Is he the inventor of the Bowie Knife. Didn’t he get killed at The Alamo ??
I see from his picture that he carries his brains in his hands.

April 29, 2015 2:43 pm

Speaking of which, today is my birthday!
I’m 35 … oh wait … 53.
Don’t be afraid to give up the love, people. You’re family!

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Max Photon
April 29, 2015 3:47 pm

happy birthday

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Max Photon
April 29, 2015 3:52 pm

forgot the cardcomment image

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 29, 2015 4:48 pm

That awesome 🙂

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 29, 2015 4:49 pm

… Too old to even get the first word right …

Reply to  Max Photon
April 29, 2015 4:40 pm

٩(͡๏̮͡๏)۶ ღ♪☺*•.¸¸¸.•*¨¨*•.¸¸¸.•*•♪ღ♪¸.•*¨¨*•.¸¸¸.•*•♪ღ♪•*♪ღ♪

James Ard
April 29, 2015 3:06 pm

Count my eighteen year old on the skeptical side. Not a hint of warming in his lifetime.

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  James Ard
April 29, 2015 7:10 pm

Take him to the Canadian north and have him talk to some fellow 18-year-olds up there, and they’ll soon correct him on that notion.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 7:19 pm

A teenage ‘Inuit geography student’? Being a friend of the author?
You really needed to search to find an “authority”, didn’t you? And using a local change in climate — which always happens naturally, and just about everywhere — may convince the religiously inclined. But for skeptics, it just provides amusement.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 8:07 pm

No need to go that far North. Most of Canada has been freezing it’s a** off the last several winters, with this last one being the worst.
Try collecting cash to “help fight man-man global warming” on a street corner in Toronto or Montreal.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 11:05 pm

What percentage of Global would that be?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 30, 2015 12:26 am

Oh, that’s a good one Harry. Would Finland do?
As it happens, traffic surveillance cameras are recording some odd, plentiful, white and cold stuff falling from the sky.
And no need to travel as far as Jyväskylä.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 30, 2015 7:00 am

skeptical science? That’s even less reliable than Wikipedia.
There hasn’t been any warming in Canada either, and most of them would love for there to be some warming.

April 29, 2015 3:08 pm

It’s clear that a plurality numbers of people parrot the MSM line on ACGW… BUT… when it comes to jacking up electric power rates support drops to 25%; and higher gasoline prices/ taxes (36%)
As for the young cohort, I suspect they are more impervious to MSM and are willing to check out blogs such as WUWT; Climate Audit (though often technical); Judith Curry etc

April 29, 2015 3:10 pm

Anyone who thinks kids can be indoctrinated must not be thinking very hard about how kids really behave. If they are told they must do something, or must think something, or something is for sure so and so…they will do, think, and believe the opposite. Many if not most. But not all. Some are soft minded and believe what they are told to believe, but even some of them will notice when things do not seem to be as they are being told is the case.

April 29, 2015 3:10 pm
double d
April 29, 2015 3:11 pm

The climate is always, by some degree, warming or cooling and has always, by some degree, warmed or cooled. Can anyone give a period of say 50 years when the climate was just right for everyone on our planet?

Reply to  double d
April 29, 2015 4:56 pm

double d says:
Can anyone give a period of say 50 years when the climate was just right for everyone on our planet?
Yes:comment image

Reply to  dbstealey
April 29, 2015 8:44 pm

When the amount of warming (or cooling) that the planet has experienced over the last 130 years is around 1C, why did you choose to plot a graph showing 120 degrees on your Y axis? In other words, you chose a Y axis with roughly 100X the change that has occurred. Why?

Leland Neraho
Reply to  dbstealey
April 29, 2015 8:50 pm

It’s not a graph, it’s snark.

george e. smith
Reply to  dbstealey
April 29, 2015 10:25 pm

This is a science site:
Please use kelvin Temperature for scientific accuracy, not that extrapolated centigrade rubbish !

Reply to  dbstealey
April 29, 2015 11:40 pm

In other words, you chose a Y axis with roughly 100X the change that has occurred. Why?

Probably to make a point.
OTOH, there is a way to make sure change is always dramatical. Do a square box and scale the graph so it goes from bottom to top. Cherry-pick start and end to make sure the first value is the smallest and the last is the largest. If the line is not straight, use some smoothing. Press the point with a linear fit, or an exponential fit with extrapolation. Don’t mark error bars.

Clovis Marcus
Reply to  dbstealey
April 30, 2015 4:32 am

Chris April 29, 2015 at 8:44 pm
The diagram is intended to show what global warming looks like on a standard alcohol thermometer. Hence the scale.

Reply to  double d
April 29, 2015 11:59 pm

and Leland:
Please note that it isn’t my chart. It comes from NASA/GISS — James Hansen’s crowd.
Go argue with them if you don’t like it.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 1, 2015 3:37 am

“Please note that it isn’t my chart. It comes from NASA/GISS — James Hansen’s crowd.
Go argue with them if you don’t like it.”
There are many plots of NASA/GISS data using different axis formats on the NASA web site, I didn’t realize that NASA forced you to choose this particular one. I went into NASA/GISS and was unable to find your chart anywhere. On the main page, they use this format:

Reply to  dbstealey
May 1, 2015 3:39 am

My first attempt at inserting a graph is a fail! The link is here:

Reply to  dbstealey
May 1, 2015 3:46 am

It is GISS data. The chart makes it easy to visualize.
You don’t like it, I get that. The reason is clear: it debunks the man-made global warming scare.
So does the chart you linked, even though you don’t understand why.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 1, 2015 1:37 pm

No, it doesn’t debunk AGW. Your attempt to hide the .8C rise is completely transparent, and the specific chart format is NOT from NASA.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 2, 2015 2:02 am

Chris says:
No, it doesn’t debunk AGW.
Nice strawman there, Chris. But I have never, ever said that AGW has been debunked. I wrote that the chart debunks the MMGW scare. You could even look it up. Go on, look at the chart I posted again.
As true scientific skeptics, we look at the alarmist conjecture which claims that dangerous man-made global warming is happening, and say: show us. Produce measurable evidence quantifying AGW.
But the alarmist crowd is unable to produce any such measurements. Very embarrassing for your alarming prediction, no? You can’t even quantify what we’re supposed to be alarmed about.
Next, I’ve never tried to hide the *very* tiny ≈0.8ºC global temperature fluctuation over the past century as you claimed. In fact, I LOL at the desperate attempts to make that seem like an emergency. It isn’t, as the chart I posted shows. There is no problem at all.
As long as the carbon scare crowd continues its giant head fake by pretending that a tiny ≈0.8º jiggle in global T over a century is something to be worried about, we will have fun pointing out that your ‘dangerous MMGW’ scare is absurd.
You’re trying to justify a conjecture that has descended into parody. The parable of Chicken Little is a perfect fit. You are trying to tell us the sky is falling, when in fact it’s just a tiny acorn that bopped you on the head. Not even that, really.
The fact is that we have been blessed with a true ‘Goldilocks’ climate over the past century. But rather than being grateful for that beneficial state of affairs, self-serving climate charlatans are trying to convince the public that the sky is falling.
They should be ashamed. And you should stop being one of their enablers.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 3, 2015 10:35 am

Considering we were in an ice age when the temperature was 3-4C cooler than today’s, saying .8C is a trivial increase beggars belief. And of course temperatures will continue to increase, so the real figure we are marching towards is between a 2 and 4C increase. Your approach is like someone who sees a big rock just starting to roll down a hill and saying “it’s barely moving!” without any regard for what will be the speed (and damage potential) in the future.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 3, 2015 8:09 pm

Chris says:
… saying .8C is a trivial increase beggars belief.
A ≈0.8º fluctuation is trivial. Running around in circles, flapping your wings and clucking that ‘the end is nigh’ doesn’t make it any more than trivial.
Just prior to the current Holocene, temperatures fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within a decade or two. Compare that with the chart I posted upthread.
Feel free to get all alarmed over a non-problem. The rest of us know better: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening.
Finally, you assert:
And of course temperatures will continue to increase
How could you possibly know that?

Reply to  dbstealey
May 4, 2015 8:51 am

“The rest of us know better: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening.”
Who is “the rest of us?” Readers of this site, some US Senators, and a few foreign leaders like Harper and Abbott?
Gee, on my side we have the world’s scientific organizations, nearly all governments, virtually all large companies, the oil companies, the insurance companies (who need to know what is coming).
So your “rest of us” is a very small group indeed. But continue to pretend that you are in the majority.

Reply to  double d
April 30, 2015 6:12 am

dbstealey nails it again. And in response to Hugh’s, “In other words, you chose a Y axis with roughly 100X the change that has occurred. Why?”, the answer is, he didn’t. The change in temperature on a daily basis is greater than the GISS chart shows. And that should always be the comparison. To track the average change against the daily swings in temperature so that the tiny rise over time has a proper background against which we can compare it. When the y axis has only a degree or two represented, climate charlatans can easily misrepresent the seriousness of the change.

Reply to  McComberBoy
April 30, 2015 6:32 pm

I wish they had drawn lines at the minimum and maximum average global temperatures in Earth’s history. We would be close to the middle of about a thirty degree range, which of course represents the range of natural variability. Temperatures have been remarkably stable.

Reply to  McComberBoy
May 1, 2015 3:43 am

In that case, you should inform Bob Tisdale, Christopher Monkcton and others who frequently write posts with extensive temperature charts. Virtually all of their posts use the same method I am suggesting. For an example see Tisdale’s post here:

Gary Pearse
April 29, 2015 3:11 pm

You know a propagandized education system fortunately does work over the long haul. 3-4 generations of intense mental bludgeoning in the Soviet Union still graduated a fair number of dissidents – these are only the most brave skeptics who lay it on the line against impossible odds, the others were probably fairly numerous – making jokes in the lineup for bread – Gee this queue is almost as long as the one for people wanting to kill Brezhnev. Socialism has a few major flaws and they are all time related. 1) promising utopia for generations and it is hard to get people to work for the glory of the state and the rewards to flow in the future. The inefficient system loses its patriots and becomes even more inefficient and finally your iron curtain falls down. 2) After every single family has lost a couple of its extended members to the machinery of ‘justice’ utopia looks even farther away. 3) After you have confiscated all the capital and spread it around, the capital engine dies of starvation as does the system. They start out with the most attractive advertising, though.

April 29, 2015 3:26 pm

When you’re constantly told by government that something is a problem, it eventually gets to the point where you check things out for yourself. When the facts don’t match the hype , rejection of the narrative occurs. Young people have had this shoved down their throats for their entire lives and teenagers are naturally of an age that thrives on challenging authority

April 29, 2015 3:43 pm

Nearly half?
What is the other nearly half thinking? That AGW is real, that it’s already happening and has transformed into Climate Change? Which seems to be like natural climate change, but much faster?
We just have to be witnesses of the data to answer those questions.
18 years of no change while CO2 keeps increasing must mean CO2 is not in control.
And also to investigate how adjustment and homogenization are performed on the thermometers temperature records, to cool the past and warm the present.

Reply to  Andres Valencia
April 29, 2015 11:45 pm

18 years of no change while CO2 keeps increasing must mean CO2 is not in control.

You don’t understand. The last 18 years is cherry-picking, the previous 18 years are the trend. /sarc

April 29, 2015 4:47 pm

People forget that millenials are more than clued up on using the internet, way more so than previous generations who are playing catch-up. A place where they are able to find science supported by observational evidence and which adheres to the scientific method, and are far less likely to watch the politically motivated agenda pushed by the TV networks on nightly news shows.
Anyone with a braincell and working fingers can use their phone to check on the bullshit claims the POTUS spews on a near daily basis. He can make all the alarmist claims he wants of rises in hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, more powerful storms, increased droughts, rapid sea level rise, etc etc, but they are easily destroyed with actual facts from even his own government departments, let alone the multitude of independent sources fortunately outside the grasp of government manipulation. Nearly two terms of repeated claims of rises have actually been years of decline.
Kids don’t like being lied to. Kids grow up, and they vote for the other guy.

April 29, 2015 5:13 pm

I will be 86 in June I Have never believed in humans caused.globel warming. There are a great many people in the world who think that man really matters, but you cannot see a tribe of them five miles away.

Mark from the Midwest
April 29, 2015 5:55 pm

Much of the analytic work that I do gets put into action by people who are basically “youngsters.” They lack formal math skills, but are incredibly good with graphs, pictograms, and other assorted visual forms of communication. They also know how to ask questions that are conceptually sophisticated, even with the lack of formal math skill. I think many of them are fully capable of grasping the failed predictions inherent in the models that are giving guidance to the IPCC, and their response to a few tenths of a degree of actual warming is “duh!” They’re also relatively unimpressed by politicians, both left and right. They think that much of what comes out of Washington is just a giveaway for votes, and that many of the doom and gloom narratives that come out of the media are “just for the ratings.” I’m not all terribly concerned about the future, I think many of these kids are smarter than many politicos give them credit for.

High Treason
April 29, 2015 6:26 pm

“He alone who controls the youth controls the future”-.Adolph Hitler. We need to work on waking up the youth that they have been brainwashed with the cAGW propaganda. Still, good to see that not all have been brainwashed, but still a worry that well over 50% have been, which for election purposes is sufficient.

john robertson
April 29, 2015 6:52 pm

Those who target children with propaganda usually reap the whirlwind.
One of the reasons such odious behaviour is to be avoided.
Same as the fools who attempt to incite a mob, for their own ends.
No surprise to me that the teenagers are cynical, once the lies of CAGW are fully exposed another generation will see the “helpers” of our bureaucratic fiefdoms for what they be.
Of course when you future is already mortgaged, to buy a welfare state which you will never benefit from, it may be that cynicism is easy.

Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 7:02 pm

For all my fans above, some data – nine of the ten hottest years in the 143 year record have been since the year 2000 (the other was 1998). 2014 was the hottest year ever. The idea that warming has stopped is simply nonsense. It has slowed from its earlier pace, but that’s quite a different thing, and one that may already be changing. To be honest, the “science” on this site is a joke, but promoted with enough conviction to fool quite a few people. Kudos for that, anyway.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 7:23 pm

For all both of my fans…
There. Fixed it for you. We’re sticklers for accuracy here. ☺

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 8:59 pm

IPCC AR5 (2013): “All global combined LSAT and SST data sets exhibit a statistically non-significant warming trend over 1998–2012 (0.042°C ± 0.093°C per decade (HadCRUT4); 0.037°C ± 0.085°C per decade (NCDC MLOST); 0.069°C ± 0.082°C per decade (GISS))…..”
Saying “statistically non-significant warming trend” is a coy way of saying “no warming trend”.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 29, 2015 11:47 pm

For all my fans above, some data – nine of the ten hottest years in the 143 year record have been since the year 2000 (the other was 1998). 2014 was the hottest year ever. The idea that warming has stopped is simply nonsense.

This is what we call non sequitur.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 30, 2015 12:05 am

Sir, your adoring throng would like to remind you that the correct spelling is “evah”.
Not “ever”.
And can you tell us more about your “Young Earth Hypothesis”, in which the earth is only 143 years old?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 30, 2015 3:14 am

If you go to the BoM website for Australia, 2014 was not the warmest evah for Australia by a long shot!

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 30, 2015 5:35 am

Here is a quote from the page you linked: “This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures.” Hover the mouse over the ominously red blinking data point for 2014, and you will see that 2014 was 0.68°C above the 1951-1980 average.
Here is a quote from another NASA webpage: “For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F….” 56°F is 13.33°C and 58°F is 14.44°C.
So, we can deduce from NASA’s own publications that the anomaly for 2014 is well within the range of uncertainty for the baseline (1.11°C) average. In other words, we don’t actually know whether, let alone how much, 2014 was hotter than the baseline average.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
April 30, 2015 7:05 am

The temperature calculations for 143 years ago have error bars of over 5C.
Even using highly massaged data, there is only a 30% chance that 2014 was the warmest year.
Is there any lie that you aren’t dumb enough to tell?

April 29, 2015 7:31 pm

SH Flashman says:
2014 was the hottest year ever. The idea that warming has stopped is simply nonsense.
Dream on. According to NOAA, these are the average global temperatures per year (h/t to Dirk):
1988: 15.4°C
1990: 15.5°C
1999: 14.6°C
2004: 14.5°C
2007: 14.5°C
2010: 14.5°C
2012 14.0 °C
2013: 14.0°C

Sorry, 2014 isn’t in the table. But to believe the globaloney you’re shoveling, we would have to accept your story that the 2014 average global temperature jumped up by at least 1.5ºC in one year.
Whatever you’re selling, we’re not buying. Try not to be so preposterous in your assertions. ‘K? Thx bye.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  dbstealey
April 29, 2015 8:08 pm

Dirk’s data appears to be false, but it’s Max’s birthday, you guys are family and I’m not, so au revior.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
April 30, 2015 3:07 pm

Hey, you are insulting James Hansen, GISS; NOAA, the almighty PIK and all the other demiurges of warmunism, from which the “data” stems. Repent and give yourself 100 lashes on the back and all is forgiven. And stop burning fossil fuel.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 30, 2015 11:33 am

Yes, there is a credibility gap here and. as a sceptic, I hate to see made up figures like this. Sorry that some do this, reflects badly on all of us.

Reply to  MikeB
April 30, 2015 3:05 pm

Well I provided links, sorry if it hurts your feelings.

Sun Spot
April 29, 2015 8:11 pm

Youth don’t trust government, and cAGW fear mongering is a government/msm political product.
H. L. Mencken
Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
Charles Mackay 1841 Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
“Every age has its peculiar folly; some scheme, project, or phantasy into which it plunges, spurred on either by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the mere force of imitation. Failing in these, it has some madness, to which it is goaded by political or religious causes, or both combined.”

Eric Gisin
April 29, 2015 9:40 pm

By the time they graduate from public schools, most students realize some of their teachers aren’t very bright, especially those that offer opinions about current events or promote their politics.
These surveys never have proper answers. They should start by asserting the earth has warmed for 150 years. Then two questions: are humans the main cause and will warming continue to a dangerous degree.

April 29, 2015 11:27 pm

Every generation rebels against the previous to a point this may just be that.

David Cage
April 29, 2015 11:35 pm

Bill Damon (@billdamon) April 29, 2015 at 9:07 pm
Yes. Great point, Bjorn! There has been no warming in the last 18 years except that 13 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.
Keep cherry picking your data!
On record? Surely that is cherry picking at its most dishonest and blatant. If the less than 150 years is “on record” then how are comparisons being made? If the earlier data is not valid then how can it be used for comparison and if it is then on record means for at least a six hundred years as a basic bottom end requirement. This is a raw minimum given the cycle can be proven to be three hundred years from Fourier analysis as the product of the two major easily identifiable cycles, and even two cycles is really quite inadequate.
This really is a field in which honesty seems to have zero value to the so called scientists involved.

April 30, 2015 12:09 am

Leland N says:
Dirk’s data appears to be false
Aren’t assertions convenient? In grown up world, someone who disputes a fact normally goes to the source, in this case NOAA, and tries to determine if they are posting rubbish.
But Leland takes the easy way out: he makes an evidence-free comment, asserting his opinion that the NOAA data is “false”.
Nice try, Leland, and thanx for playing with the adults here.
[That’s the same Leland who called this NASA/GISS graph “snark”]:comment image
Here’s some more “snark” for Leland:
[Now ^that^ was snark.☺]

Reply to  dbstealey
April 30, 2015 3:09 pm

Well, Leland is more right than he wished. All of it is false, it comes from the masters of falsity, the warmunists. Not that it makes much sense to compute an average after you have done your very best to trample the Nyquist theorem all the way from here to sunday. Or that an average temperature of a planet is a terribly useful metric for anything anyway.

April 30, 2015 3:29 am

This confirms the half-life of climate prognostications to be below 18 years. A brief recap seems appropriate:

April 30, 2015 5:37 am

Interesting, but I am skeptical about polls questioning 18 to 20 year-olds. ;->

James Strom
Reply to  PaulH
April 30, 2015 10:26 am

(“Interesting, but I am skeptical about polls questioning 18 to 20 year-olds. ;->”)
Not sure which way your irony is cutting, but the poll is interesting as a measure of the effectiveness of the “global warming education” that these 18-20 year-olds have been exposed to for, maybe, 18-20 years. It says that somewhere in the murky cognitive development processes of young people there is a capacity for questioning. If so, there may be a glint of hope for the planet yet.

April 30, 2015 6:33 am

“The Younger They Are, The More Skeptical”
Of course, when you have a school system that is dominated by progressives who rejected “The Man” when their reached young adulthood, it only seems obvious that when youth they teach grow to young adulthood, they will reject “The Man” .. just like their school teachers had done years ago.
The real problem is that now the “progressives” are “The Man.”
Benny Goodman before a concert at Carnegie Hall was heard to say … “tonight this place will be full of long hairs” … and he didn’t mean hippies.

April 30, 2015 6:34 am

Yesterday (Apr 29th) in Edmonton we were at 9C. Today, at 7:30 AM we are at 16C. OMG….globul warming. Blame the Alaskans for sending down that warm air! Do I really need a sarc tag?

April 30, 2015 7:17 am

I’ve got a 12yr old boy and 11yr old girl. The boy could give a rats ass, the girl is firmly in the skeptic camp. I being a meteorologist gave her direction and she thinks it is all much ado about nothing. Good girl that daughter of mine :-).

April 30, 2015 7:18 am

Once upon a time young, impressionable minds were taught how the world is by older people who thought they knew everything. Whatever they first heard on any topic was held to be Gospel, and any later, disparate ideas were considered heresies at best and Machiavellian lies at worst.
Then along came the Internet, which quickly came to replace the efforts of lazy teachers and busy single parents at educating the children.
Searching the Internet would answer their questions faster and more reliably than asking a grown-up. But the search engines are intellectually neutral, so they present the correct answers and the incorrect answers to kids’ questions, side-by-side, without bias. Children raised with Internet access have quickly learned to compare the different sides of any argument and decide for themselves which seems to make more sense.

Steve P
April 30, 2015 8:25 am

I’d like to see the real numbers from this study, but the “page is currently offline.”
I’m curious because it seems to me that most of the really fierce skeptics here are older.
And wiser.
While it is true that recent generations have grown up with the internet and social media, it should not be forgotten that there was already a very large pool of experienced PC and Mac users long before the internet was ever democratized, and I would argue as well that it is in fact some cadres from these older generations who have profited most from the rise of the worldwide web, because many of these people were educated under a system whose standards were very much higher than those of recent decades. Yet, there are always plenty of nincompoops and technoflubs in every generation.
My impression is that most of the younger, outspoken voices are those of CAGW drones lapping up the royal nectar.

April 30, 2015 6:37 pm

I haven’t posted anything in here, simply because I don’t have enough knowledge to say anything particularly intelligent on the topics. But in this case, I was reading a story over at Science Daily, and there was a sentence part that struck me as encapsulating the issue with a lot of the AGW stuff, what is posted in here, and the real meaning of what the practice of science is as opposed to what “warmists” seem to do:
“…Richards teamed up with experts in many areas to try to discover faults with his radical idea…”

Sir Harry Flashman
May 1, 2015 6:03 am

Also keep in mind that this is America we’re talking about, where 42% of the population believe that God created the Earth in 7 days, and 36% think aliens have visited the earth. So I’mma take your science opinions with a grain of salt.

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
May 1, 2015 10:40 am

By any definition an angel that comes down from heaven, on wings no less, (they didn’t specify whether the wings were fixed or attached) is an alien. The very construct of the images from the old testament accounts could very well anybody’s description of a ufo today.
I can hold 2 contradictory dogmas in my mind at the same time. In this case one is a basis in fact and one is of belief. No matter how far down the rabbit hole you go with string theory or quantum physics, the question will always remain, what or who made this. So if you were abducted by aliens, would that be a belief or a fact? Who says that there aren’t several different species already here? Could you really tell if someone was genetically engineered to live here? Or close to but not from here? Does a 0.1 make a difference in DNA and the outcome?

Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
May 1, 2015 12:42 pm

Well, Flash, that’s why we keep asking you climate alarmists for facts and evidence to back up your assertions. Starting with some measurements quantifying manmade global warming.
But all we get are answers that sound suspiciously like the folks who believe in aliens.

Philip Arlington
May 3, 2015 12:42 pm

I despair that a woman bright enough to work at Harvard is trying to shoe-horn this issue into the pathetically crude and useless liberal-conservative dichotomy.
I am not a liberal.
I am not a conservative.
The same applies to everyone else, if only they would think it through for themselves. Neither term is of any use at all as a summary of the views of anyone who thinks at all.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights