Study: climate skeptics are winning the public opinion war

From MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY:

Climate-change foes winning public opinion war

EAST LANSING, Mich. — As world leaders meet this week and next at a historic climate change summit in Paris, a new study by Michigan State University environmental scientists suggests opponents of climate change appear to be winning the war of words.

 

"It's extremely difficult to change people's minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views," says Aaron M. McCright, a Michigan State University environmental scientist.

“It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views,” says Aaron M. McCright, a Michigan State University environmental scientist.

The research, funded by the National Science Foundation, finds that climate-change advocates are largely failing to influence public opinion. Climate-change foes, on the other hand, are successfully changing people’s minds — Republicans and Democrats alike — with messages denying the existence of global warming.

“This is the first experiment of its kind to examine the influence of the denial messages on American adults,” said Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”

The findings come as leaders from 150 nations attempt to forge a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. During a speech Monday at the Paris summit, President Barack Obama said the “growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.”

Nearly 1,600 U.S. adults took part in the MSU study. Participants read fabricated news articles about climate change and then completed a survey gauging their beliefs on the issue. The articles contained either positive or negative real-world messages about climate change, or both.

The positive messages framed the topic of climate change around one of four major issues: economic opportunity, national security, Christian stewardship and public health. According to the article addressing public health, for example:

“Medical experts argue that dealing with climate change will improve our public health by reducing the likelihood of extreme weather events, reducing air quality and allergen problems, and limiting the spread of pests that carry infectious diseases.”

In half of the articles, participants were presented a negative message that read, in part: “However, most conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so-called climate change is vastly exaggerated by environmentalists, liberal scientists seeking government funding for their research and Democratic politicians who want to regulate business.”

Surprisingly, none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.

“That’s the power of the denial message,” said McCright, associate professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.”

###

The study appears online in the journal Topics in Cognitive Science. McCright’s co-authors are fellow MSU researchers Meghan Charters, Katherine Dentzman and Thomas Dietz.

Advertisements

349 thoughts on “Study: climate skeptics are winning the public opinion war

    • Example positive: “medical experts”
      Example negative: “conservative leaders/Republicans”

      This study seems to say more about the author’s view of the world than their subject’s ability to be swayed by “deniers”.

      • Yes, this illustrates again the extreme bias by rent-seekers getting all the grant money to put the skeptic argument in a bad light.

        Climate-change foes, on the other hand, are successfully changing people’s minds — Republicans and Democrats alike — with messages denying the existence of global warming.

        I’ve never heard/read ANYONE on the various skeptic or warmest blogs I frequent state that there is no such thing as global warming. I’m a skeptic. Climate changes. We’re still coming out of an ice age. It looks like there is some small amount of warming right now.

        The argument is about how much are we warming (not much, especially recently in spite of CO2 still climbing), whether it’s bad (most effects so far are helpful), is it caused by us (an almost complete NO in my opinion), and should we all open our wallets and lose our liberties to let people who think we have a control knob try to do something about it (emphatic NO!).

        “This is the first experiment of its kind to examine the influence of the denial messages on American adults,” said Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”

        forourlady – I agree that this reveals more about the indoctrination and bias of the study authors than anything else.

        Skeptics are winning over the minds of those not too far gone in the indoctrination category because people are seeing that the science DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CAGW THEORY. And this is in spite of a well coordinated multi-faceted blitzkrieg of messaging from the warmists that is funded to the tune of $10s of Billions (US) per year; compared to a pittance of funding of the skeptic position (including the mostly non-existent “big oil” money).

      • “…a well coordinated multi-faceted blitzkrieg of messaging from the warmists that is funded to the tune of $10s of Billions (US) per year…”
        I like that one. I think I will use it next time I hear about the Big Oil funding.
        Of course, the fact is, Big Oil is part of the $10s of Billions blitzkrieg! They are no ally of the sceptic.

      • Boulder skeptic you have nailed it. One principle “blind spot” of the Warmist’s is that their continuous “Denier” label (slander) doesn’t resonate with the vast middle that are uncertain.
        They hear from the skeptic viewpoint an acknowledgement that the climate changes complete with proof of change pre industrial revolution and the rapid rise in the use of fossil fuel. As the warmist’s manically continue their false narrative, attacking opposing scientific opinion, rather than inviting open debate, they expose the dishonesty of their hypothesis. Nobody is denying that the climate changes.
        Anyone who interacts on comment boards with a skeptical point of view is personally attacked. Attacks are not science and they will never win discussion points.

      • Boulder, you haven’t been around that long, have you? We have our share of fools, just like the rest of the world.

        However, as an employee of “Big Oil” myself, I will confirm that the main idea from high corporate on climate change has been how much money we can make off cap and trade and how good a PR reductions would be. They couldn’t care less, and dislike us in Environmental even talking openly about climate change matters internally.

      • Gasp…you mean to insinuate that you work for a COMPANY that concerns itself with annual profits and that that looks for ways to maximize them for themselves and their shareholders in the future? Those FIENDS!

        However, without any evidence to support your assertions about your employer, you offered up only what amounts to your personal opinion, and I tend to take such things with a grain of salt.

      • Boulder skeptic you have nailed it. One major “blind spot” of the Warmist’s is that their “Climate Change DENIER” label (slander) doesn’t resonate with the vast middle that are uncertain.
        They hear from the skeptical viewpoint an acknowledgement that the climate changes complete with scientific evidence that these changes have been occurring since before man discovered fossil fuels. Then they observe Warmist’s falsely accuse opposing opinions of denying something which they are not.
        Anyone with a passing acquaintance of CAGW comment boards encounters cogent skepticism followed by manic warmist’s personal attacks.
        They just don’t understand that will never win them debate points; they can’t reason that the debate is not over because Al Gore declares it to be so.

      • Y’know this would be just plain funny if the damage done weren’t so serious. These pinheads with their massive brains in their ivory towers can’t even figure out one simple common sense truth: The art of persuasion does not include talking down to people. Which is all they know how to do. “Oh just trust me, I’m so dam much smarter than you, I’m obviously right!”. What a bunch of toads. The fact that I am forced to help fund their excessive salaries is almost more than I can bear!

      • Example positive: “medical experts”

        It’s actually funny when people cite “medical experts” as a group worthy of blind trust, when theses “experts” manage to get pretty much everything wrong, sometimes very wrong, sometimes causing the damages they should prevent, sometimes several times (baby on the back/front/side, avoid all allergens/keep as much allergens as you tolerate, surgery recommended for spine hernia/no surgery, retract the foreskin of children to avoid issues/the forced retraction of the foreskin was causing the damages not preventing it, PSA testing, breast cancer screening (original study probably fraudulent), small nodule thyroid screening, etc.).

      • Jeff on Calgary: Indeed Jeff. In Alberta, Big Oil has aligned itself with the ND Government’s war on Climate Change because it puts money in their jeans. The ND Socialists are running ads every half hour or so in prime time on how we are all dying from pollution from Coal fired generation and that is why they are going to shut them down. Then they are going to implement a Carbon tax and use the revenue to subsidize the building of “renewables” and “alternate energy” plants – which makes the oil and gas companies rub their hands in glee since the government is killing an energy competitor and the oil and gas companies know full well that they will be drilling, fracking, and piping gas to Gas Turbines all over the province. Coal supplies about 50% of Alberta’s power. That is a lot of gas that needs to be supplied to replace the coal because as we all know, wind and solar won’t do it. At my place today, the sun never got above the trees to the south of my house. Solar should be really cost effective. (Sarc off)

        I lived downwind from several coal fired power plants west of Edmonton for over a decade. Never saw ANY particulate matter and the ONLY noticeable impact was a rain shadow and a little extra powder snow in the winter from the water vapour. Now east of refinery row …

        I am not anti-oil. In fact my rather weakened portfolio at the moment would show just the opposite. But the gloating in some sectors over the killing of coal is not good. Energy suppliers going on TV to reinforce the government position is totally hypocritical and short sighted.

        To steal a saying:

        First they came for the coal companies, and I did not speak out –
        Because I was not a coal company.

        Then they came for the oil companies, and I did not speak out –
        Because I was not an oil company.

        Then they came for the gas companies, and I did not speak out –
        Because I was not a gas company.

        Then they came for you – and there was no one left to speak for you.

      • “To steal a saying:
        First they came for the coal companies, and I did not speak out –
        Because I was not a coal company.
        Then they came for the oil companies, and I did not speak out –
        Because I was not an oil company.
        Then they came for the gas companies, and I did not speak out –
        Because I was not a gas company.
        Then they came for you – and there was no one left to speak for you.”

        +1 great use of the known

        I’ve been pondering this ever since I tripped over a documentary about Thatcher, the mining union and oil supplier battles and her desire to unseat their power by advocating nuke power. She initiated an interest in learning how regulating CO2 could get her what she wanted.

        Could it be that much of this shake up in whose got the chips is about a push to make nuke power a reality. Perhaps this time is with the Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) ?

        I increasingly see the term pop up in semi green NGOs webpages.
        Deep pockets are funding their promotion as well .. Gates, Soros, Zucker, China

      • Aphan, use your judgement as you will. While I have no qualms about making money, I do take issue with cronyism, much less supporting legislation harmful to the economy because it benefits you personally, which is short-sighted at best.

      • Boulder Skeptic notes that despite $Billions wasted on the ‘dangerous AGW’ climate scare, the alarmist contingent isn’t getting traction any more.

        Saul Alinsky told them why it’s not working:

        A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag.

      • It’s much worse than I thought in Alberta. Apparently the Big FOUR energy producers in the oil sands have been negotiating a secret deal with “BIG GREEN” and the ND government in Alberta. In return for putting a CAP on development of the oil sands, the current developers get to keep all the oil sands development to themselves, thus freezing out competition; and the Enviros from the United States and Canada have agreed to stop opposing pipelines so the oilsands producers can get their product to tidewater.

        Here is the tip of the ice berg:

        http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/secret-deal-on-albertas-oilsands-emission-limits-divides-patch

        I’ll repeat what I said before about or left wing governments in Canada:

        To steal a saying:

        First they came for the coal companies, and I did not speak out –
        Because I was not a coal company.

        Then they came for the oil companies, and I did not speak out –
        Because I was not an oil company.

        Then they came for the gas companies, and I did not speak out –
        Because I was not a gas company.

        Then they came for you – and there was no one left to speak for you.

        Bill McKibben must be having a heart attack!

        Watch for news on this later today, December 3, a day of infamy.

      • “simple-touriste

        December 2, 2015 at 7:18 pm

        …the forced retraction of the foreskin was causing the damages not preventing it,…”

        I bit the hand of the Dr. that did that to me when I was about 3. I was quite the riot growing up. Now maybe “karma” is paying me back as I look after a10yr old with ADHD.

      • You need to remember where this study comes from. MSU – “Make Stuff Up” Climastrologists are educated in the same philosophy and ideology.

    • Some study. So let me get “things” straight. Quoting from the MSU study:

      “Surprisingly none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, the participants were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change–and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.”

      So the obvious conclusion from the above finding is that the “denial” messages are universally more compelling than the hive’s “Brand X”, flim-flam alternatives. . Simples, right? How could it be otherwise?

      Well–SUPRISE!!! SUPRISE!!!–the estimable Aaron M. McCright, lead author of the MSU study, concludes otherwise. That is, Aaron’s gotta-save-the-narrative, alternative explanation for the “denial” messages’ kick-butt rout of their we-depend-on-the-stupidity-of-the-American-people, sweet-talk, we’re-smart-and-you’re-not, eco-hustle rival-messages, is just due to “entrenched” pig-headedness on the part of those darn “deniers”. Really, that’s what the guy says!–“That’s the power of the denial argument, it’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, because they are, in part entrenched in their views.”

      Huh? Come again! So, Aaron, didn’t you earlier say that the “denial messages” made the participants in your study–Republican and Democrat and conservative and liberal, alike–more “apt to doubt” the hive’s Gaia-con orthodoxies, to such a degree that the participants even came to question the very existence of climate change? So what’s that got to do with “entrenched views” ? In other words, where’s the connection, Aaron, between the findings of your study and your explanation of the same?

      Or is it, Aaron, that your “entrenched views” explanation is really just a big, fat, slicko, non-sequitur Gruber-booger, groped up, willy-nilly, from out of one of your consenting-adult nostrils? And further, Aaron, might you have come up with that off-the-wall “entrenched view” explanation of yours, as a desperate, “Hail Mary” ruse to distract attention from the major-league damage your study does to “the team”, and “the cause”, and the gravy-train good-deals of greenwashed, academic trough-suckers, the world over? In other words, Aaron, are you tryin’ to pull a “fast-one” on us coolie-trash nobodies, hopin’ we’d never think to question one of our betters?

      One last thing, Aaron. You might want to reconsider your cheap-shot, little-shit use of the term “denier”, what with its subliminal resonances with the term “Holocaust denier”. And do you know why you might want to reconsider the use of that term, Aaron? No? Well, then, I’ll tell you why, Aaron. It’s because using that term, Aaron, makes you look like complete, hive-tool a-hole!

      • It is true that Aaron’s survey tells us quite a bit about Aaron.

      • Hello mike!

        Thanks much for all of your constructive feedback, which I will, of course, fully and graciously consider in future work. I would share with you my work on organized climate change denial that I have conducted for nearly two decades, but I fear that might just be too much for you to bear–since it appears that you tend to get somewhat emotional about things. (I get it, I get emotional when I watch “Saving Private Ryan.” Hang in there, brother.)

        I do highly value the ideal speech settings that online comment boards have become, and I look forward to further productive discourse with you and all of your colleagues. Unfortunately though, I don’t have too much free time to participate in such activities, since I must devote so much of my efforts to promoting the hoax that is anthropogenic climate change (shhhh, please don’t tell anyone I just told you that–and please don’t forward it to anyone!).

        While I must praise you for your creative use of colorful metaphors, I am a bit disheartened that you have decided to make fun of my nostrils. Have you no shame?! One man’s nostrils are not another man’s business! In other words, not cool, dude, not cool. Please accept the following as my rebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ.

        And please have a glorious and joyful (and warmer!) holiday season!

      • Assistant professor A. McCright says:

        …my work on organized climate change denial …

        You’re deliberately being a jerk.

        I would love to debate your .edu claptrap in any fair, moderated venue. I would demolish you in public and for the YouTube record, as would most readers here. You obviously don’t know your ass from your elbow about basic science.

        But you lack the cojones to debate, don’t you? Instead, you loll around in your heavily taxpayer subsidized Ivory Tower, where you keep your tail tucked firmly between your quivering thighs as you hide out from any honest debate. You won’t come down to the real world because you collect your fat income without any risk there. (In case it’s not clear, this is a direct challenge to debate.)

        At least we have the pleasure of debunking your “denialist” nonsense here, at the most heavily trafficked climate site on the internet (more than a 250,000,000 unique views in only a few years, with a million and a half reader comments). Maybe more than a few MSU alumni will read this thread, and decide their money is better spent elsewhere.

        Good thing for tenure, eh? It beats the alternative of flipping burgers. And your waistline sure doesn’t need that.

      • Re: Statement of sociology professor, Aaron McCright, 8:40am, today:

        … climate change denial … for nearly two decades… .

        ” (A. McCright)

        Comment: In other words, you have been pursuing something which never existed to any degree significant enough to make it worth paying you to “study” it — for nearly 20 years. The majority of science realists, whom you call “den1ers,” have never denied that climate changes or that since the LIA the earth has warmed slightly. Congratulations on making a fair amount of money off a bunch of hot air.

        The intriguing question is: why have you not gone on to bigger money? A slick con-man like you ought to be able to get 3 times the income you’re pulling down now.

      • Aaron M. McCright

        Thanks much for all of your constructive feedback, which I will, of course, fully and graciously consider in future work. I would share with you my work on organized climate change denial that I have conducted for nearly two decades, but I fear that might just be too much for you to bear–since it appears that you tend to get somewhat emotional about things.

        1. Please, let us read all of your published works (since your Sociology BA in 1996 or your PhD in 2002 at least) of your “nearly twenty years” of “organized climate change denial” since there has NEVER been any organized, nor well-funded, nor under-funded, nor oil-funded “climate change denial ” programs.

        2. We know how many government-paid climate “self-called” scientists can be bought for 92 billion dollars in just three years. How much money have you received (salary, grants, travel, per diem, outside funding, programs and presentations since 1996 to promote your chosen religion of “climate change denial” of the evidence? How many papers did YOU get paid for from those hundreds of billions wasted chasing a Utopian dream that will not change “climate” nor global average temeprature even one degree?

        3. Now, how many innocents do YOU demand be left in short lives of squalor and misery freezing to death in the dark drinking contaminated water from a pond shared by animals and manure, with no refrigeration, lights, nor cooking, no food, spoiled and rotting food, and no medicine? Today, some 1.2 to 2.2 billion more people are fed better than ever before BECAUSE of the increased food and fodder and feed and fertilizers and fuel LIVING and GROWING faster than ever in history made possible by man’s release of extra CO2 into a CO2 depleted atmosphere. How many do YOU demand die just so YOU can condemn Christians and conservatives with policies that artificially and uselessly raise energy prices and restrict energy growth?

        4. Your prejudices are clear from your .com web page.
        So, tell us what are the benefits of increasing CO2?
        What are the benefits of cheaper energy and more-widespread clean water, better transportation, better food, better sewage treatment, better lights and heaters?
        Name a single REAL problem with an increase in CO2 to – say arbitrarily – 1000 ppm.
        Name a single REAL problem with an increase in temperature of +1.0 degree.
        Name a single REAL problem with an increase in temperature of +2.0 degree.
        Name a single REAL problem with an increase in temperature of +3.0 degree.
        Name a single REAL problem with an increase in temperature of +4.0 degree.

      • Great interrogatories, R. A. —

        You go beyond the merely disgusting fact of his bilking taxpayer’s hard earned money to fund his life for 20 years and get to the cruel underlying reality of what the “work” of the McCright’s of the world creates:

        misery, poverty, and death.

      • Michael Darby,

        Two questions:

        • What does your link have to do with “climate change denial”?

        • Are you aware that more than $1 billion is funneled into ‘studying climate change’ every year by the federal government alone?

        Your link is to a back-patting advertisement from Exxon, which says nothing about “climate change denial”. You need to read what you link to, son.

        Taxpayer loot is not given to scientists skeptical of the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare. Any scientist who tells the truth: that there is nothing occurring now that is either unusual or unprecedented, or outside of past natural parameters, gets no federal grant money (or any other financial support that I’m aware of).

        Thus, ‘climate change’ hysteria is amply rewarded, while honest science is starved of funding.

      • Okay, Michael Darby (at 10:40am today), you have named one scientist who publicly disagrees strongly with AGW speculation and who receives direct, significant, government funding.

        D.B. used the word “scientists.”

        Try naming 10, Mr. Darby. I doubt you can even name 5.

      • M. Darby,

        “Lidzend” (sic) is retired.

        Now you may frantically resume your search for skeptical scientists. But please try to spell their names correctly; you wouldn’t want readers to think you’re ignorant.

      • I wrote that gov’t taxpayer loot does not go to scientists who state the truth: that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening.

        Find a quote saying that from a climate scientist getting federal grants and you’ve got an argument. Just throwing out names indicates that you’ve got nothin’.

        It would also give you some much needed credibility if you spelled Prof. Richard Lindzen’s name correctly.

      • Sheesh Mike! Tell us what you really think? :)

        Personally, I wonder how many skeptics began their interest in Climatology (for lack of a better term) as potential “believers” as I did? I came to the field with the idea there must be something to it and was absolutely appalled by the lack of data and poor methodology. At first I didn’t even want to discuss it with other people, mostly because it’s surprising how many folks have no clue at all about how important measurement is to science, but also because a lot of the people I knew had already assumed that if scientists said it was so, it was.

        I honestly wouldn’t put much faith in Aaron’s findings; as you mention he seems to have an agenda and not much in the way of wits. The survey bias alone is enough to stop a clock. In his defense he may be using the term “denier” only because it’s in the popular vernacular, after all both the President and Vice President of the US use it, along with their science adviser. It may end up being a good thing since the term is starting to reflect poorly on the people who use it.

      • “a lot of the people I knew had already assumed that if scientists said it was so, it was.”

        Fascinating to me at least … study done awhile back concerning trust in government.
        We trust from the bottom up. Local officials before state and then fed. We trust who we do our battles with, overcome our struggles. Those struggles create the bonds of trust.

        Scientists have been riding a special category of trust since WWII. The trust and admiration grew to the point where if a scientist said it, it must be true became the marketing whiz bang.

        IMO science went astray when it sought rock star sexy status. It was never cut out for that because the method is not based on that.

        A few more ruses promoted by the unholy marriage of science and politics and people will think much harder about what comes out of the mouth of a scientist. It’s already happening.

      • “I wonder how many skeptics began their interest in Climatology (for lack of a better term) as potential “believers” as I did?”

        Yes. I never had any interest in meteo/climato.

        I was wondering how reliable “reconstructions” were, I some doubt, but I guessed the science community was a strong filter, in particular scientists I know personally.

        But then came the vaccines controversy, and the medical community was silent (or hysterical or bullying) and said there was no issue even where clearly there were issues. Some scientists I used to respect as very fine, articulate, subtle, independant minded persons said exactly nothing about the flu vaccine, because the community said nothing.

        The vaccine apathy is pretty much the equivalent of keeping the existence of the Bomb secret after the of WWII.

        Then I realise the community is a bunch of sheeps. Very weak minded, mostly leftists people. As dumb about politics as they are subtle about their scientific field.

        Conspiracy theorists got this right: most people when faced with inconvenient facts will just ignore them. (Conspiracy theorist often miss the part where they are the sheeps they are condemning.)

    • And unfortunately for the AGW monks, people can and do think for themselves and see the truth when facts are presented to them.

    • “That’s the power of the denial message,” said McCright, associate professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.”

      In reality it is the “power” of scepticism. You also have to factor in human laziness. AGW messages demand that we “walk on eggs,” being extremely cautious of the “climate effects” of everything from getting to work to using hot water to bath. A natural world where human influence is more limited is a simpler one. One of the great disservices to the environment of the AGW argument is the de-emphasis of other, real issues like losses of potable water sources to agricultural, biological, social and industrial pollution in favor of “controlling” CO2. Unsafe water is endemic in poorer nations and is spreading in the poorest. Water quality has actually been improving in the US and other industrialized countries as we address the real environmental effects, which can be dealt with through better engineering and regulations.

    • So Sociology is the preferred pre-requisite science for studying climate ??

      Who knew ?

      I would have guessed that Physics and Chemistry and Geography for example, would be more relevant sciences to learn.

      g

  1. Simple question. Do you believe CO2 is the primary driver of climate change? People who say no are NOT climate change deniers we are people who do not accept the CO2 is the driver of climate change. is that so difficult to understand?

    • The very worst thing about global warming is the so-called remedy. It’s nothing but a socialist/Democrat wet dream. I’d be willing to give them some leeway if they actually came out and said mitigation is a non-starter, adaptation is the only way to go. But trying to cram socialism/communism down our throats is one of the main reasons the average person doesn’t want anything to do with going along with the idea that we are to blame. It will incentivize them to look more closely at the claims and that alone converts many to skepticism.

      • BINGO! They try to cram socialism/communism and increased taxes down our throats. To add to what you said, if they even would consider the only real mitigation (nuclear power), again, I may give them some leeway. But they will only consider the unicorns and rainbow mitigation that doesn’t exist and won’t work, but will cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.

      • Judith Curry calls that the iatrogenic effect. Where a proctor’s actions induce harm on the subject.
        It would be so encouraging if people would wake up to what this all means.

      • The very worst thing about the Illuminati depopulation advocates for global fascist totalitarian government’s decision to use global warming and resource scarcity as a disguise for their agenda is that they published the fact that they “came up with the idea” and it would “fit the bill” in “The First Global Revolution” in 1972, and scientists have been waiting for the ‘science’ to be demonstrated for 43 years and ignoring the fact that the science is economics, political science and psychology; the cognitive science of perception manipulation. (green-agendadotcom) Scientists who are not political sycophants could have done an awful lot of good for the environment and humanity with the trillions of dollars fed to environmental activists and unethical scientists to promote the AGW scam over that period of time.
        Codex Alimentarius, a plan to cause mass death through deprivation of healthy food and vitamins and minerals and a ban on all natural medicines and supplements is much scarier than Agenda 21. It was written in 1962. It includes a large amount of dietary fluoride. The Journal of the American Dental Association published the results of the Manhattan Project’s Project F on the health hazards of fluoride in 1948, and the DOE immediately censored it “for national security reasons”.

    • Call it what it is: Global Warming!
      Climate change is meaningless misdirection, and we play into their control of the whole discussion when we use their talking points!
      No one thinks CO2 causes random changes…the alarmism is based on the notion that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.

    • RobW,

      Yep. That’s the Question.

      For a couple of years now I’ve been asking anyone (but mostly alarmists) to produce a verifiable, testable (replicable) real world measurement quantifying the effect of CO2 on temperature.

      So far… *crickets*

      After a century of searching for any measurements like that, no one has found any. That means either AGW doesn’t exist (I think it does), or its effect is so minuscule that it’s too small to measure; the signal gets lost in the noise.

      So if CO2 is the primary (or even a measurable) driver of ‘climate change’, there must be verifiable measurements. But there are none at all.

      Draw your own conclusions…

      • dbstealy writes: “if CO2 is the primary (or even a measurable) driver of ‘climate change’, there must be verifiable measurements. But there are none at all.”

        Wait a minute there, I think you’re tossing out the baby with the bathwater. For the past 18 or so years haven’t we observed no warming? At the same time I believe we’ve observed a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 fraction.

        I believe those measurements are repeatable. My conclusion would be they are evidence that CO2 does not drive climate, using data collected “in the wild” rather than in a lab.

      • Hi Bartleby,

        By ‘measurements’ I mean: a verifiable measurement showing that for ‘X’ amount of CO2 emitted, global temperature rises by ‘Y’ degrees. AGW needs to be measurably quantified, if it is to move beyond being a conjecture.

        But yes, I agree with you: CO2 does not drive climate (meaning global T).

      • DB

        Wonder if you can help me understand why Kobashi 2011 is not added to temp charts I see on the web concerning a comparison of paleoclimate temps.

        I plucked this one off the recent Siegel article.
        I tried to ferret around as suggested by Aphan and can’t find a reason why it is not included other than disparaging remarks by places like hot whopper.

        Thanks

    • Is it so difficult to understand that this is not a question with a binary answer. The reality right now is that we don’t understand how and why natural climate happens. That being the case the only honest answer is

      ‘I don’t know’

      Prior to its hijacking by the IPCC gravy train the role of Climate Science was to figure out these issues as only when you know how natural climate change occurs can you reach any sensible conclusion regarding human influence. That sensible approach has largely disappeared as funding is only available to those who beat the global warming drum.

    • The fact that the Gorebots are allowed to refer to skeptical scientists as “deniers,” while we are castigated for calling them “Gorebots,” tells you everything you need to know about liberal media bias.

      Counting college, I have been a geoscientist for 40 years…

      I have never denied climate change. My skepticism is based on the undisputable fact that the Earth’s climate isn’t currently changing any differently than it has routinely changed throughout the Holocene. I embrace climate change; I don’t deny it.

      I have never denied climate science. CO2 is a so-called greenhouse gas. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions do add to the radiative forcing in the lower atmosphere. However, the degree to which this alters the natural process of climate change is unknown, perhaps unknowable. All of the actual evidence indicates that the anthropogenic effects on climate change have been insignificant. Calling me a climate science denier is like calling me a geoscience denier if I said 100 BCF prospect was more likely to be 10 BCF because the volumetric analysis only supported 10 BCF, with the other 90 relying on langiappe.

  2. How about we frame the study the other way around.

    After all, climate doom-mongers are not famous for their “positive messages”. They are famous for trying to frighten people out of their wits.

    On the other hand, CO2 fertilization is making the planet a more productive, more vital, more verdant place. That sounds like a positive message, right?

    Climate alarmists are fear-mongering. Climate skeptics are optimists. What is the chance we will see THAT study funded by the NSF?

    • It is interesting in my experience there are many who believe we affect global climate, who also believe that adapting to it if it does happen, beats the tar out of taking such a gamble to prevent it.

      • My “advent prayer” is that the fight on climate change be redirected as the fight of climate adaptation.
        Does that go to God, or Santa?

  3. Wouldn’t inserting partisan politics into the questionnaire have an influence on the responses? Is the study author a sociologist or an environmental scientist?

    And so infuriating, that presenting facts to people is characterized as “negative”.

    The good news is…it is worth the effort to open more eyes to the truth.

    • He is a sociol0gy major.

      Aaron M. McCr1ght is Associate Professor of Sociology in Lyman Br1ggs College and the Department of Soci0logy. He also has an appointment in the Environmental Science and Policy Program. He holds a BA in Sociol0gy from the University of Northern Iowa and an MA and PhD in S0ciology from Washingt0n State University.”

      {Source: http://sociology.msu.edu/faculty/profile/mccright-aaron/ }

      Thus, making this statement (from caption in above article beneath his icy-eyed photo):

      … says Aaron M. McCr1ght, a Michigan State Un1versity environmental scientist,

      … another l1e.

      The guy’s a l1ar paid to l1e.

      The End.

      • Correctomund, Janice.

        But a site pest claims that someone edumacated in Sociology is equal to someone educated in Mathematics.

        Nope. Sociology is a skate course. Anyone can get that simpleton degree.

      • If that person falsely claimed to be “an environmental scientist,” yes.

        Not logic, Watson, just an issue of fact.

        ***********************
        @ YOU, Old, I aim this remark: you are either psychotic or you are intentionally misusing Ronald Reagan’s surname** in your moniker. You speak (day after day on WUWT) in favor of things which he loathed and or in a slimy, half-truth, manner which makes your use of “the Great Communicator’s” name a vile desecration of his memory.

        ** If you think that ANY other person than Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, is identified with that name in the minds of people reading these comments, you are psychotic.**

        Yes, yes, dear WUWT commenters, I realize I am YELLING AT A TROLL, but, it was fun!

        Okay. No more kindness to the troll today — he THRIVES on attention, just watch him play for it…. over …. and over…. and over.

        ************************
        btw: I think he has been on WUWT in years past under other names…. but, who knows? The troll tribe all kind of sound alike.

      • Oh -ho! So ol’ “Old” called me a name, did he? lolololol

        As accurate as all his other remarks, no doubt.

      • Janice Moore
        We know this guy. Aaron M. McCright, a Michigan State University environmental scientist.
        Last nov, dec, he had a paper come out right in the middle of the snow storms
        How do we find the Paper and should we bother?
        michael

      • Hi, Michael (not a) Morlock,

        Here is what I think your fine mind recalled:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/24/michigan-state-professor-labels-skeptics-as-global-warming-cynics-due-to-not-getting-on-board-with-the-extreme-weather-link/

        (Quote from above article: “What will it take to convince skeptics of global warming that the phenomenon is real? “)

        At least in THAT publication, the caption beneath his icy-stare photo calls him a “sociol0gist.”

        He’s been featured on WUWT before that, too… I tried (very briefly) to search WUWT for it, but failed. To find the above link, I just typed: “Mich1gan State” in the WUWT search box (on right side bar of home page).

        Your WUWT pal,

        Janice

      • @ Michael (not a) Morlock: I spelled “Mich1gan” with an “i” in the search box (and would spell sociol0gist with an “o”, too…).

      • Mod-chuckling in real life for the “time out” being imposed on 1oldnwise4me. What a loon!

        Janice- “reagan.com” is an email service provider, so 1oldnwise4me is actually using an email address as his moniker. I’m going to enjoy his well deserved time out, I hope you do too! :)

      • Randy Bork also cites this, at 3:50pm today, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/study-climate-skeptics-are-winning-the-public-opinion-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2085513

        #(:))

        (You also should get some recognition for remembering that, Mr. Bork. No, you didn’t ask for any — purely gratuitious!)

        ******************
        (a bit of warding off of those in the Sneering Section):

        Pride would say coldly: “I didn’t need that.”

        Vanity would say warmly: “That makes me happy.”

        Only two choices…. which would YOU rather be?

        Vanity is not deadly to the soul…

      • Hi, Aphan,

        Thanks for that info. (didn’t know that — STILL sickening, though…). Yes, nice to have a break from Old, but… I really do need more practice at self-control (to ignore him — best response to a troll).

        Heh, no doubt, I’ll get my chance to work on that before too long… . ((ouch!)) Hey! That troll just threw a prune pit at me! lolololo

        Janice

      • Janice Moore
        Oh dear me it just clicked, both of poor “Aaron M. McCr1ght papers are showing up AFTER winter storms.

        Is his thought processes influenced by this horrific weather? Is he not projecting he depression and anxiety onto skeptics? Rationalizing his internal demons, materialized by the bleakness of the world he exists in, and metamorphosing them into a humanistic form, which he can now rational react against. I think he may need counseling.

        Or I may just be full of baloney.
        do I need a “tag”

        michael :-)

      • Environmental Scientist = Climate Scientist = Oxymoron.
        Real scientists don’t wear these trendy labels.

      • Janice, he has as much a right to claim the title of environmental scientist as I do. My chemical engineering degree isn’t what qualifies me. It’s my years dealing with environmental laws, regulations, and its direct effects on industry, as well as my after-hours research into matters..

        His job title is that he is a Professor in the Environmental Science department. If that doesn’t count as an “environmental scientist” nothing does.

        It’s not his title that you should object to, but his poor job of fulfilling the role.

      • Dear Ben (of Houston),

        Perhaps, you missed my comment here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/study-climate-skeptics-are-winning-the-public-opinion-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2085447

        The man is an Associate Professor in the Sociology Department. He claimed to be an “Environmental Scientist.” He is not. I exposed him so bluntly because I feel that he is dishonest. To be a bona fide “scientist” (in environmental studies) he would need to have done extensive study in: physics or math or atmospheric chemistry or chemistry or biology or the like.

        He styles himself an “environmental scientist” for the purpose of fooling the public into believing his opinion about AGW is an “expert” one. He is intentionally misleading his readers.

        You bristle at my attacking McCright. I think that his chicanery deserves a sharp response.

        Good for you to defend a man you felt was wrongly maligned.

        You’re a good guy, Ben.

        Your feisty gal WUWT ally for truth,

        Janice

      • One of my favorite ” I love Lucy. ” episodes included a discussion about one of the cast’s sessions with a practitioner of one of the dismal “sciences” leading candidates for the Scientific Totem Pole pedestal. It’s probably in a tossup with sociology.

        Ricky Ricardo, in his best broken English referred to the practitioner,
        as a ” Pee-SICK-key-uh-trist ” with the accent on the SICK.

        My sentiments exactly. The idea of getting your jollies listening to the most intimate details of someone else’s private life; often absent one of the parties, is about on the same level as sociology.

        So far as I am aware, nobody has ever proved to be able to read out the thoughts going on in another person’s head, and decode those signals to listen in on the dissertation.

        Now Psychology is a study of behavior, which is something you can actually observe.

        But ” Pee-SICK-key-uh-tree ” is just that; SICK !!

    • I was new here . one of my early comments

      Mike the Morlock November 24, 2014 at 4:32 pm
      Tsk.Angry? Serious perhaps, a bit overweight for his age I think,,, perhaps some snow shoveling will cure both mental and phyical burdens.

      asybot November 24, 2014 at 4:41 pm
      “perhaps snow shoveling will cure both mental and physical burdens”. Mike snow shoveling apparently kills a lot of people each “warmer” winter, you would not want him to shovel snow in his physical shape!

      Mike the Morlock November 24, 2014 at 4:58 pm
      Yeah point taken, I grew up in Conn in the 1960-70s We made money shoveling now. It gave all of us kids a work ethic, or the start of one. I forget shoveling snow is something you have to learn to do. Take your time and pace yourself, And not be alone.

      Bad me I would not forget him
      michael

    • Pretty hard to believe this sort of sophomoric stuff is coming from a Big 10 school. Very disappointing.

    • I would think that an Professor of Sociology would hold himself to a higher standard when devising a research survey, than Dr. McCright et. al has achieved. Many of the questions were either ambiguous or contained pejorative terminology to yield an unbiased result. If an Ecologists had done the survey I might of used it as an example of why it should have been constructed by a professional Sociologist!

  4. We are not opponents of climate change. Most of us absolutely do believe climate changes, both from place to place on earth, and from time to time (climatically).

    Many of us also believe there have been periods of global warming

    Many of us also believe that CO2 can capture outgoing LWIR radiant energy, and warm the atmosphere.

    Some of us do not believe that this results in the whole earth surface warming; because of cloud cover negative feedback. More warming, more clouds. More clouds, less surface solar energy. Less surface solar energy, more cooling. More cooling, more precipitation. More precipitation less remaining cloud cover. Less cloud cover, more surface solar radiation. More surface solar radiation, more warming.

    Atmospheric warming can even be started by water vapor itself. So CO2 is not necessary to start atmospheric warming.

    More atmospheric CO2, less water vapor and clouds needed for steady state stability.

    No problemo !

    g

    • Yes , the only ” Climate Change Deniers ” are the Warmist Loons that think that weather never changes !! Which is probably why the AP decided it was a naughty word !

    • “More warming, more clouds. More clouds, less surface solar energy. Less surface solar energy, more cooling. More cooling, more precipitation. More precipitation less remaining cloud cover. Less cloud cover, more surface solar radiation. More surface solar radiation, more warming.”

      References?

      • SCIENCE Jul 13 2007. Frank Wentz et al (Remote Sensing Systems, AKA RSS)

        “How much More Rain will Global Warming Bring.”

        Now why would you believe anything from any reference that I might give you ??

        I’m just the messenger; not the message.

        MOST WUWT readers, can actually make it all the way through, what you excerpted, without the aid of ANY references.

        But I would welcome your pointing out where the mistakes in my sequence are.

        g

      • References not required for anything found in a textbook, or anything which is a argument of simple logic (or math).
        Always remember: Google is your friend.

      • Sounds like the water cycle as taught in my 7th grade physical sciences text way back in the 70’s. Should be baseline common knowledge.

      • I personally am no longer willing to indulge the time wasting trolls who ask a one word question which requests a long answer. These people can do their own homework, AFAIAC.
        Even if it were not the case that they are not actually lacking information, are not actually persuadable with logic or evidence, and always ask question but never ever answer any.
        Wagen, if you need references for the simple chain of logic mentioned by George, you are neither qualified to interject an opinion in a serious discussion, or educated sufficiently in the subject matter if the requested information was supplied.
        If you cannot keep up with the conversation…go do some of the homework you have neglected.

      • Menicholas:

        You say

        I personally am no longer willing to indulge the time wasting trolls who ask a one word question which requests a long answer.

        Trolls cannot benefit from provided information because they don’t want to learn. They want to spread disinformation.

        Therefore, questions from time wasting trolls need to be addressed for the benefit of onlookers who may be misled by the trolls.

        In this case, I think the best reference in response to the question from the egregious Wagen is
        Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton, ‘Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?’, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854. (2005)

        Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid-1980s. Pinker et al. analysed the satellite data for cloud cover and the resulting changes to solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface: clouds reflect sun light back to space so it does not reach the Earth’s surface.

        Pinker et al. report that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid-1980s and late-1990s.

        Over that period of less than two decades, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

        (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 Watts/sq metre).

        Hence, it is an observed fact that changes to cloud cover which humans do not effect are far, far more important for climate change than changes to greenhouse gases.

        Richard

      • Wagen, I would also suggest the IPCC report for the first part, and their prediction of increased water vapor in the atmosphere. That leads to the first part of your quote, and as for the rest: do you really need a reference for the water cycle?

        And George, the net effect will most likely be a small increase in temperature. The resulting changes as you describe will offset much of the change, but the world is not homeostatic (it does respond to stimuli), so we should not expect 100% in any case.

      • Satellites can measure the effect of clouds on radiation emerging from the earth. I know of no process by which they can measure the amount of solar radiation that actually gets absorbed by the non gaseous surface of the earth.

        Also, while increased CO2 likely does cause increases in atmospheric Temperature; that is no assurance that the actual earth surface Temperature changes by any perceptible amount.

        Remember that at any time, the actual surface Temperature of the earth surface ranges over at least 100 deg. C from place to place.

        The locations where surface Temperature might increase, and where increased atmospheric CO2 might capture more LWIR radiant energy are not necessarily the same areas.

        But a 7% (measured) increase in total global water evaporation; for a 1 deg. C surface Temperature rise, is a totally astronomical negative feedback effect.

        G

        The Wentz et al SCIENCE paper is to me the Rosetta Stone of Climate Science.

    • Absolutely correct.
      In my small sphere the only people who seem to be interested in understanding the climate are skeptics of hard CAGW.
      Let’s say that I introduced a large group of people to an idea such as the influence of cosmic rays + aerosols on cloud formation. And that group contained a cross-section of skeptics and alarmists and inbetweeners.
      I can bet that the skeptics in that group will take far more interest in the idea and the latest research and latest thinking than the hard CAGW types.
      So it’s not the skeptics who have closed their minds off from new information, in general.
      Sadly most of the general public have little interest in the complexities of climate science and they have been repeatedly reassured that scientists are universally in agreement about the settled science of AGW.
      The situation here in the UK and E.U. is dismal.

      • Frog

        Europe has much bigger problems than a CAGW hoax.
        Here’s my new favorite easy graphic for rowdy arguments in real life.
        Thanks to the Lord.

        It’s such an easy graphic you can wip it out even when the audience is distracted by tight jeans, hunger or UFOs.

  5. opponents of climate change appear to be winning the war of words….

    good Lord…they can’t even admit common sense won out

    • This “study’s” purpose is not at all to genuinely identify public opinion, rather, it is merely a platform for more:

      AGW Psy-ops:

      1. Mischaracterize opponent’s position;
      2. Attack that faux foe:

      Climate-change foes, … with messages denying the existence of global warming.

      That is a bold-faced l1e-by-omission (of one key word: anthropogenic.)

      Another empty-payload missile fired in the “war of words.”

      What a loser.

  6. It is not accurate to say “entrenched in their views” when it is science process and related accessible public information that continues to degrade the models, projections, and claims of the policy advocates over time. Even the IPCC science reports change over time away from previous findings and away from to the unwavering policy summary version. Another way to look at is the kooky claims in the daily news over time is adding up in the public conscience to indicate something is wrong with the message and the messengers, much like they do with presidential candidates across time.

  7. sounds like the “positive” messages were “fabricated”, while the “negative” messages were merely stating the facts!

    would you be convinced by the following? note the anti-coal message:

    AUDIO: 4mins44secs: 2 Dec: BBC: The science behind the greenhouse effect
    We hear a lot about the greenhouse effect and how it is affecting the earth. We asked the experts to show us how it works. Professor Jo Haigh from Imperial college, who is co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, and her colleague Dr Simon Foster designed an experiment for us. Our environment correspondent Matt McGrath went to see.
    (Photo: The E.ON coal-fired power station in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. Credit: Martin Meissner/AP)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p039x3dg

    • His own patron, Roger A. Pielke, Jr. just testified that costs relative to all natural disasters were down as where any type of costs for damage triggered by nature. He’s not delusional – he simply outright lying – not an immoral act when it’s construed as liberal noble cause corruption

      • Wait!
        Bumper sticker:

        NOBEL CAUSE – By Hook Or Crook

        (oops, that accidentally got pointed at Al)

  8. “… when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change”.

    Which is why liberal media outlets refuse to even acknowledge there are contrary views. NPR does a story about whether or not climate change will adversely affect one cohort or another, or cause a specific change in in the environment, as if they are being open minded. But implicit in the story are the agreed-upon “facts” that unprecedented global warming is happening, and humans are causing it.

  9. WOW! I’m laughing so hard.

    “However, most conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so-called climate change is vastly exaggerated by environmentalists, liberal scientists seeking government funding for their research and Democratic politicians who want to regulate business.”

    If I read that, since I believe that statement to some degree, I wouldn’t view that as a “negative” message. I’d view it as “true”. Intelligent people who become “entrenched” in their views usually become that way based upon the real world evidence they have encountered and studied on the topic at hand. For example, I’m firmly entrenched in the view that I am a human being living on the planet Earth. To change my mind, you’d have to give me a whole lot more than “news articles” stating otherwise! ROFL….these “social scientists” might as well use crystal balls and cauldrons….at least cauldrons would involve actual chemistry.

  10. “opponents of climate change”
    “climate-change advocates”
    “Climate-change foe”

    Strange wording. Many people accepting human caused climate change (as per IPCC), advocate stopping it or slowing its rate (that is where the real problem would be) can be called “opponents of climate change”. Similar arguments can be made for the other two quotes.

    • Wagen says:

      Many people accepting human caused climate change…

      Many people accept Phrenology, astrology, and Scientology, too. They have just as much evidence to support them as does ‘man-made global warming’.

      The only thing most skeptics are “opponents” of is the completely evidence/measurement-free CAGW conjecture.

      But if you have any such evidence, by all means, post it here. I am interested in seeing what motivates your belief.

      • If I may-

        Wagen was commenting on the “strange wording” of the three quotes he posted first. Lets clarify what I think he said after that: (in light of his mention of how the words used were strange)

        “Many people accepting human caused climate change…(who) advocate stopping it or slowing it’s rate…can be called “opponents of climate change” Meaning that because they OPPOSE the climate changing, and they want to slow or stop it, THEY are the ones that should be called “climate change opponents.”

        But skeptics are given that designation, which makes no sense at all. (and I agree with that) You can call us AGW opponents, or CAGW opponents, or the foes of groups or people who claim the science is settled etc. but you cannot logically say that we are foes of the climate, or of any changes in the climate. We don’t argue with, engage in debate with, or fight against the CLIMATE.

        While I normally disagree with Wagen, what he actually said here doesn’t use the words “evidence” or “support of beliefs” at all.

  11. In other words- “Climate Skeptics are immune to false news reports and refuse to change their minds based on the opinions of others”

    • Bingo. But it also works that way in long political campaigns with biased media piling on and making up for missteps of the favored one. Eventually it works against them and they don’t even pick up on it in the process.

  12. From the article:

    “That’s the power of the denial message,” said McCright, associate professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.”

    There is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change. If some evidence were provided, people would change their minds. But all we have are alarming predictions that do not come true, and wild claims of “hottest year evah!” that are demonstrably false. Why wouldn’t people be skeptical? Why should they change their minds when there is no reason to do so?

    TA

      • @Aphan –

        The answer to your question is: “Since Warmist/Alarmists have been presenting their narrative”.

      • 1oldnwise4me@reagan.com
        Careful, when one considers the requirements for “sociologists” a high school drop out is equally informed.
        This is not to slam “sociologists” but simply to point out that the areas of knowledge and the training of thought processes are so different.
        michael

      • When they are looking for grant money. Same as the mathematician in another recent post.

        It does tarnish the reputation of real environmental scientists (there are some out there)

      • OldNut, the good count never claimed to be an environmental scientist.
        He presents his evidence and invites others to study it.
        Are you really as pathetic as your whine makes you sound?

  13. It may also have just a little something to do with the language. Calling someone a denier, conspiracy theorist, 1%er capitalist shill (pick your insult) and then suggesting that you engage with them in good faith dialogue and are defeated by some nefarious behind the scenes influence seems a bit over the top. I cringe whenever I see a Skeptic use similar tactics, everything you say after you blatantly attack the integrity, intelligence or honesty of someone is just wasted air.

  14. The IPCC denies basic physics and it too has a large influence on public opinion. Sure the denial message has power, but when both sides are perceived as denying truth, only one side can be right and that’s the side that should come out on top.

  15. Considering alarmist funding is several thousand times that of alarmists, this has to tell you something: namely, that the people cannot always relied on to be duped by parroted propaganda if the truth says otherwise.

  16. Why are they calling it denial? There is nothing to deny. CAGW is wrong. Are the researchers of the opinion that people are so stupid that they can’t see the snow piling up? Snow in some places is a four letter word.
    When did it become a crime or something to be ashamed of to doubt if Bernie told you, ” trust me if I have to explain it to you wouldn’t understand it”? I’ll bet there are some well known people, who most everybody on here knows something about, wish they had some doubts. The researchers went at this believing skeptics have deluded people. This is twisted.
    If anybody is deluded it’s the researchers and the way they went about this.

    Let’s do the research a different way. Do it from the view that CAGW is either flawed, mistaken, or fraud.

    • It certainly it, however, saying “facts and evidence champions are winning the public opinion war” simply can not be admitted by the CAGW folks.

      • I thought the motto here is: “News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”,

        Nothing there about “winning public opinion”…

      • Well, look up “puzzling things in life” and you’ll see “public opinion” as one of them, unless you find an incomplete list.

        /grin

      • Mods…wanna run an IP check/comparison?

        “Wagen” just posted-
        “I thought the motto here is: “News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”,

        Nothing there about “winning public opinion”…”

        Someone(s) with a different name has recently been arguing/complaining/trolling about what gets posted on WUWT and insinuating that Anthony’s site is supposed to be about nothing more than “facts” or “science”, which it has never been. So will all due apology to “Wagen”, I’m calling BS on him/her being a new commenter. Happy to be wrong if that’s not the case.

      • I second Aphan — Wagen the Hall Monitor is quite the pest. Yes, the mods do a FINE job of making sure all is kosher on WUWT. Go suck eggs, Wagen.

      • Leland Neraho the Hall Monitor, behaves the same way and made a similar post/argument 4 days ago regarding WUWT:
        “This is a science based website and forum. Please keep your posts to science and not politics or religion.”

        I responded to his false claim by cutting and pasting the exact quote from the About Page of WUWT for him that Wagen just posted.

        Now, I realize that it’s entirely possible that a newbie like Wagen, could easily have found that quote on the About Page themselves, and just copied and pasted it here. My suspicion comes from the fact that no innocent, intelligent newbie has ever commented what WUWT is “about”, or attempted to claim that something posted is NOT an “appropriate topic” for WUWT. So what are the odds that TWO newbies have done that in just the past 4 days? And the first one was neither innocent or intelligent.

        Just sayin…

      • My two cents. It is our gracious host’s site and he can post whatever interests him here. We are all just along for the ride and education.

      • Lol, Aphan — what a memory. Hm…. have YOU ever seen Wagen and L. Neraho together in the same room? ….. ;)

      • Well, if Aphan is right and Wagen is someone who has posted before, and the “other personna” posted such inane comments as Wagen has, then it is no wonder he/she changed their name.

        He/she is just trying to disassociate him/herself from him/herself out of embarrassment.

        Just sayin’

      • Janice…it’s a curse…trust me. (just ask my husband! rofl) Seen them in a room together? Now that you mention it….NO! :)

        JohnWho- If I am right (and I am perfectly happy to be wrong) they may have changed their name, but weren’t smart enough to change their behavior here. Hence my use of the qualifiers “intelligent” and “innocent” along with “newbie”.

    • Uh, wait just a minute…

      I said “just sayin'” and so did Aphan.

      Am he me? Are I he? Are we me?

      *things that make you go “hmmm”*

      • Mods…could you check JohnWho’s IP address/location to make sure he’s not me and mine to make sure I’m not him? Because if I’m him and he’s me, one of us needs to be banned for pretending to be us.
        :)

      • “what he said…” Ha! Just trying to throw us off the track, aren’t you Aphan (er, unless you are a man with a “husband,” but, I don’t think so, you used the endearment “hon” with someone on this thread (men don’t “hon” other men, in my experience) and that was when I knew (then, the husband comment confirmed! “I THOUGHT APHAN WAS A WOMAN!” — neither here nor there, just a neat confirmation of my intuitive thinking abilities (I mean!! Nice to know I have some!!))

      • LOL! Aphan “is” a woman! Always have been. I’ve never denied or attempted to hide my gender, but I’ve found that sometimes people discuss/argue/debate with me differently upon finding out I’m not the “male” they had assumed I was. It’s also hilarious that I’ve dropped several hints like the “hon” thing here over the years and you’re the first to pick up on it….and you’re a woman….”just sayin” :)

        Now if JohnWho is really a man (as I assume) and I’m a woman, that whole IP address/comparison sock puppet thing just got a whole lot more weird for both of us.

      • New facts in evidence support the conclusion that Aphan and I are not the same person.

        Got to admit, I was worried there for awhile.

        /grin

      • @ Aphan — Heh. Well, you were wiser than I… to use a neuter name. I don’t think that I am imagining that those with female names here raise the hackles of a few of the men much more readily — the rate of vehement, sternly worded, responses to Eliza and to others (and me) is higher than that for the average male name, imo. When I blogged on two other sites about 5 years ago, I used a neutral name for each — people almost always thought I was a guy. Maybe it’s because I have two brothers and no sisters… . What-EVER! I like me! (and you, too).

        Anyway, too late, now! I like that several people “know” me, here — wouldn’t want to lose that by going undercover, now. And… I won’t blow your cover… :) …. er, again… (my big ego just HAD to say it) .

        @ JohnWho — lol, never fear — it is a delight to be a person with both a strong feminine and masculine “side.” You just didn’t realize how cool you were, did you? :)

      • Janice, part of the problem is that until fairly recently, the vast majority of people who actively participated in such forums were men. Without visual clues, it’s easy to forget that the cyber world has changed.

      • Janice,

        I note that most of the posters that have cogent arguments will attack arguments not the person (or in sports metaphor “play the ball not the man”). I know when I read the comments, I read the remarks and only check the name if I am going to reply to the comment so I can address it properly. I wish everyone would do that. (Of course I am guilty of using male pronouns when referring to those of unknown gender…got to use one or the other and I refuse to use the politically correct pronoun inventions!)

        A well structured argument is a thing of beauty no matter who lays it out.

    • Wagen.. how much have you read on on here? The science and facts are pretty heavy. So far none of the questions that have been asked have been acknowledged or answered. Which prediction made in 2001 happened? Other than, next post on wattsup, about CAGW trying to show that the MWP didn’t happen, it’s the same thing, oh, it was local and not world wide. The science is very solid that that both the LIA and MWP were world wide. Meanwhile, ignorant people pop up on here without bothering to look at some of the discussions about the levels of co2, temperature, historical data, etc, and decide that all any skeptic is capable of is rhetorical non sense. I’m responding to an article that is extremely slanted and without merit.

      You tell me why 2 events that happened without the benefit of co2 controlling the climate, preceded this current claimed warmup? I refer you to your hockey stick chart which shows both temperature and co2 levels as being level during those time periods. Explain how that happened. Even with the last 17 years of extensive data on temperature, none of the models, going back to any time period can recreate the climate of the past 17 years. Neither can any of the models produce any results prior. CAGW inability to predict, constant assertions that the planet is doomed from all kinds of half baked assumptions is the reason I’m here. Let me refresh your memory, which island nations are underwater, Antarctic is melting, Canal St in NYC is under 20 ft of water. It comes down to the math to make things believable, did any of those things occur? If the math that CAGW used to expound these predictions was true those things would have definitely happened, not some time in 2100. That’s what the urgency was/is about.

      The math is wrong. I couldn’t say that unless I was right. And that makes AGW wrong.

  17. Dr McCright seems to have got a bit muddled.

    In his last paragraph he says it’s hard to change peoples’ minds. But the second paragraph says that ‘foes’ are successfully changing minds.

    • Good catch! I called this whole thing “Delicious irony smothered in stupid sauce” a moment ago….your comment is like sprinkles on top of it all!

    • It’s kind of like CO2. It can cause warming or cooling, floods or drought, more snow or less snow…

      We “denialists” can either change our minds or not change our minds, whichever fits the narrative. He’s just streamlined things so as to fit both narratives into one study/press release.

      No doubt, such efficiency will be viewed quite favorably by all the grant reviewers at the NSF, which by the way, can stand for both the National Science Foundation and the National Sanitation Foundation.

      See, even more efficiency!

      • “It’s kind of like CO2. It can cause warming or cooling, floods or drought, more snow or less snow…”
        I find it surprising that all the climate change properties attributed to CO2 never include the principle, and in my mind, the singular effect of more plant growth is never credited by the warmists.

  18. “Study: climate skeptics are winning the public opinion war”

    No, those crying wolf are simply losing public opinion. Realists were never in a ‘public opinion war’ they never had the need of one. Data and history are all that is required

  19. No, it is over top advocacy doing it to themselves as usual. The harder they push and the wilder the claim, and the louder their screams, the more positions harden. And that’s not even getting to the ones that go out and do more research on their own and start finding all the holes being covered up in the media and science distortion.

  20. “This is the first experiment of its kind to examine the influence of the denial messages on American adults,” said Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”

    Agenda much?

  21. Anthony, you need to stop posting this stuff…lol! You just increased the number of people who would even KNOW about this article from 10-20 to potentially hundreds of thousands!

    Luckily, if the article’s findings WERE true, the “news article” on it provides such a “negative message” that people will be “more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.” :)

    Delicious irony smothered in stupid sauce….mmmmmm

  22. But Global Warming does exist.
    It’s just not important or particularly dangerous.

    And the latter point is being realised by everybody.

    • For one, he isn’t even doing a proper sociology experiment. In a proper experiment one would keep the prompts neutral so as not to influence the outcome of the experiment with researcher bias. He went full bias mode and still got contrary results. I am sure he went into the experiment hoping to show that alarmist messaging was winning the day and made the experimental design as biased as possible and still got contrary results.

      • Aaron M. McCright’s post upthread seems to inicate he does not like the heat in the kitchen. Poor fellow.
        Facebook is an interesting foray into the world of “cussing”. People never post any evidence, or if they do, it is cut n paste with zero understanding of what was cut n pasted. Usually it is mindless boring name calling.
        It seems the sceptics are the always the better informed.

  23. The skeptical argument simply supports what people see with their own eyes. The alarmists are trying to convince people that they can’t trust their own observations, but should accept the climate doomsday scenario on faith.

    • At a minimum, it is safe to say their homogenization algorithms import station data pollution. See my previous guest post here showing that clearly using the CRN1 surface stations project data. Or see essay When Data Isn’t in my ebook Blowing Smoke for a global, rather than US centric expose of the sqme issues. The German professor is merely the most recent of many to latch on to this issue.
      The raw temperature record has been significantly altered. The alterations are statistically and counterintuitively biased. The result is that at least 1/3 of AGW has been ‘anthropogenically manufactured’ by post hoc ‘adjustments’. Maybe half. Not all. But the adjustments have also diminished the roles of UHI and natural variability. So clearly warmunist ‘motivated’ and not scientific.

    • Dave … 54321 — “Happy New Year” (hope you don’t mind my having fun with your “name”)…,

      I have seen at least two other commenters post that article in WUWT requesting that it be featured (one was Eliza — forget the other, it was a man’s name) within the past 3 weeks or so.

      I put a Tips and Notes (on Navigation Bar at top of WUWT Home page) comment up about it about 2 weeks ago.

      For some reason, Anth0ny, apparently, doesn’t want it here. Sure would like to know why. A m0derator or two must have seen those other requests for it’s being featured on WUWT.

      I thought the article looked like a GREAT one to discuss on WUWT.

      Try posting a “Tips” comment up with it. Maybe, you’ll get some results!

      Janice

  24. The full paper is paywalled at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12171/abstract

    The abstract sounds like he’s a sociologist. What’s a “frame”?

    Abstract

    Prior research on the influence of various ways of framing anthropogenic climate change (ACC) do not account for the organized ACC denial in the U.S. media and popular culture, and thus may overestimate these frames’ influence in the general public. We conducted an experiment to examine how Americans’ ACC views are influenced by four promising frames for urging action on ACC (economic opportunity, national security, Christian stewardship, and public health)—when these frames appear with an ACC denial counter-frame. This is the first direct test of how exposure to an ACC denial message influences Americans’ ACC views. Overall, these four positive frames have little to no effect on ACC beliefs. But exposure to an ACC denial counter-frame does significantly reduce respondents’ belief in the reality of ACC, belief about the veracity of climate science, awareness of the consequences of ACC, and support for aggressively attempting to reduce our nation’s GHG emissions in the near future. Furthermore, as expected by the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis, exposure to the ACC denial counter-frame has a disproportionate influence on the ACC views of conservatives (than on those of moderates and liberals), effectively activating conservatives’ underlying propensity for anti-reflexivity.

  25. What kind of jerk is this McCright guy? What gives him the right to blaspheme the millions and millions of Jews, Gypsies, infirm and weak, homosexuals, and people of color or other ethnic origin who were murdered by the Nazi’s during World War II? Does this arrogant low-brow think he has the moral chops to accuse people of being Deniers just because of a failed climate hypothesis?

    Deniers, indeed. Puff-heads like McCright have no sense of science or history. They plod along in their little intellectual bubbles with no knowledge of the real world around them. His little study is the equivalent of intellectual self-abuse. I seriously doubt that McCright has any clue how science works, and that it is not a thing, or something to be worshipped.

    It is no mystery to most Americans why so-called climate change mavens are not to be believed. Most Americans are smart enough to buy a used car and get a good price. Most Americans are smart enough so know a snake-oil salesman.

    What’s even worse, the American taxpayer probably paid for McCright’s miserable imitation of an academic endeavor. Kooks like McCright need to lose their jobs. They contribute nothing.

  26. Here is the denizen of a two-dimensional world concluding that belief in more than two dimensions denies science. You begin with the belief that (1) CAGWT as the only science on climate and (2) there is no scientific research supporting a different climate position. So if CAGWT is your only science, rejecting it for no APPARENT reason must be a denial of all of science. If you live in two dimensions.

  27. So thats an environmental scientist.
    Well the mental part is right.
    “Delicious irony smothered in stupid sauce….mmmmmm” Exactly.
    This kid is so poorly schooled, he is choking on his preconceived conclusions.

    Now given the wealth of existing CAGW articles, why did he feel the need to fabricate further?
    As for counter views? WUWT has no difficulty sourcing them.
    So even fabricated facts beat fabricated propaganda..
    What was that lament from the warmest “communicators” a couple of years back?
    Words to the effect they could not “communicate” with sceptical persons because these people were so obsessed with getting the science right.
    Facts ? Science? SO not climatology.

  28. It’s extremely difficult to change people’s social scientist’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views professionally infected with leftist ideals.

  29. This study seems to produce a bias when the ‘so called’ positive statements include obviously ridiculously claims about potential positive results of climate mitigation, and equate climate change with smog and particulate pollution. Even the IQ75 guy living in a backwater shack knows enough to call BS on that! Of course the study shows people becoming more sceptical.
    But that is the big problem the Alarmists have isn’t it. Their claims are getting crazier and crazier; to the point where no one with 1/2 a brain believes what they are being told.

    • Jeff in Calgary,

      Yes, it’s obvious:

      If the alarmist contingent had credible facts and evidence, they wouldn’t need to make up their wacky scare stories. The evidence would speak for itself.

      But so far they haven’t been able to produce even one measurement quantifying AGW. That means it’s merely a conjecture, and as every year passes with no global warming their position becomes more ridiculous.

      I might add: so do their supporters.

      • Repeated with emphasis — D. B. you have an engineer’s nice precision in writing which I wish I could imitate!!

        … they haven’t been able to produce even one measurement quantifying AGW.

        GAME — OVER.

  30. Like Red narrated in The Shawshank Redemption…

    “That’s all it takes, time and pressure.”

    As time passes, more and more people that have even a shred of common sense are opening their eyes and noticing that “Gee!. It isn’t getting worse.”

    The pressure was felt by the alarmists. They had to continually oversell their doom and gloom to get any attention. Do that enough (which they did) and even some of the people without common sense noticed they were full of it.

  31. Thank you for bringing our attention to yet another government funded, highly biased, university based “study”.

  32. I am curious to know what the actual results were.
    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiR0Iy_q77JAhWi2aYKHWxrDkAQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmsutoday.msu.edu%2Fnews%2F2015%2Fclimate-change-foes-winning-public-opinion-war%2F&usg=AFQjCNEzcQvOm47tp7WGmutmF7UAENyWrA&sig2=Cd0Vg65hWqbfw4mMWhV8BQ
    This does not say, just a summary.
    The ethos using ‘denier’ and smoking stacks reeks of halo error in the trial design.
    The fact that the ‘denier’ message is getting through could mean that the participants are in touch with the reality that climate always changes and we may not be the proximate cause.
    It would be interesting to look at the types of education the participants have and see if there are any correlations.
    Perhaps the real trial is to see what ‘deniers’ think of the ‘outcome’ and analyse those results.
    We may be part of his experiment.

  33. when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.

    Doesn’t jibe with:

    “That’s the power of the [d-word] message,” “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.”

    He just said that the “negative” messages made people more apt to doubt, meaning those messages did, in fact cause some to change their minds, and become doubters. The part about people being “entrenched in their views” was a red herring, designed to distract people from the fact that the Skeptic message, being the true one, is the more powerful.

    • Nice argument, sharp-minded (as usual) Bruce Cobb. Internally inconsistent reasoning styling itself a “study.”

      How goes the “battle” for truth with your close relatives (yeah, I remember who, just thought it might be better not to say)? I feel for you — must be kind of depressing at times, not to be able to have likemindedness with those you care about most in the world about such an important issue as science realism. Hang in there — you are not alone!

      Your WUWT pal,

      Janice

  34. Perhaps humor is gaining among the masses.

    Stopped at the local pawn shop to rummage thru traded in knives.
    I’m a big fan of everything NOT made in China with some craftsmanship to it.
    The owner made a funny as I asked for any high carbon, damascus steel.

    “Well sonny, you better get these while you can, I hear they are gonna outlaw carbon.”

    My take is that if he’s making a funny then his awareness is increasing.
    That’s good.

    Of course, I laughed and said, it’s okay, I’m donating my carbon to the Pope.
    He didn’t laugh although I think he wanted to.
    Delivery, timing, audience.
    It’s all so tricky.

      • Knute,

        (playing off Jeff’s insight at 4:08pm)

        You are a “right Jerusalem blade”** (for truth in science). A skilled wielder of truth!

        Janice

        ** from John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress

      • I remember a vintage shotgun that had destroyed itself when fired, the barrel having unwound into a long flat metal ‘ helical spring’, probably injuring the guy firing it, too. A knowledgeable arms specialists advised that it had a damascus barrel which was not strong enough for firing modern shells. Gee was this town a special place for knives and guns?

    • ROFL….maybe his sense of humor isn’t a sharp and refined as yours knute. He could very well have assumed you meant to send the knives….to the Pope. Gotta know your audience hon!

      • lol

        (I’m serious! — and NO! I am not going for the “most posts in one day” award, lololol)

    • Knute
      Damascus Blades are something we cannot reproduce. There are many legends and tales of how the blades were made. The truth is lost in the mists of time.
      Hardened steel capable of being bent from feeble to forte then springing back.
      I am a toolmaker by trade. From my earliest years as a apprentice we were taught of all the things we no longer knew how to make.
      Greek fire is another.
      As for Damascus gun barrel that is totally different. Just flat iron lengths welded together then bored to make a gun barrel.
      With modern powder they tend to “peel” back like a banana along the welded seams.

      Oh and if we had the meteor ore to make a “Damascus” blade, I don’t think OSHA would approve, It requires a ahem, slave in the quenching process. Guess the rest.
      We still have a few of the blades in museums.

      michael

      • Mike

        Noble man, noble trade.
        I shouldn’t be surprised that WUWT attracts talented people.
        Few would know what is meant if I said “Wootz Up With That”.
        Hope you still practice.

  35. Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”
    ==========
    Thanks for the flash …Gordon.
    Now for your next experiment, you might study just exactly what your experimental group was denying.

    Science is a process, last I heard.

  36. “…Participants read fabricated news articles about climate change and then completed a survey gauging their beliefs on the issue. The articles contained either positive or negative real-world messages about climate change, or both…”

    Fabricated news articles that contain positive or negative ‘real-world’ messages? Fake but real!?

    Only a CAGW faithful could believe that. Only us silly professionals would expect a legitimate sociologist to know how to not totally bugger subjective questions.

    “…The positive messages framed the topic of climate change around one of four major issues: economic opportunity, national security, Christian stewardship and public health. According to the article addressing public health, for example:..”

    Positive messages about:
    economic opportunity – jobs?
    national security – ???
    Christian stewardship – positive!?
    Public health – Tuberculosis is wiped out?

    “…Medical experts argue that dealing with climate change will improve our public health by reducing the likelihood of extreme weather events, reducing air quality and allergen problems, and limiting the spread of pests that carry infectious diseases…”

    Aanndd, so much for a positive question!

    “…In half of the articles, participants were presented a negative message that read, in part: “However, most conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so-called climate change is vastly exaggerated by environmentalists, liberal scientists seeking government funding for their research and Democratic politicians who want to regulate business…”

    What was negative about this question?
    Could it be a negative economic opportunity?
    Perhaps it is about negative national security issue?
    Or was it about negative Christian Stewardship actions?
    Certainly the question wasn’t about negative public health issues?

    Noooo! What made the questions negative were words like:
    conservative leaders,
    Republican politicians,
    climate change is vastly exaggerated,
    by those poor suffering liberal scientists and environmentalists needing funding,
    or those pitiful Democrat politicians who want to ‘regulate’ business?

    Since this study is not about science.

    This is one sick deluded over educated, under brained, sad sack of a very confirmation biased terminally repressed individual!

  37. The poor professor just shows that Ma Nature’s reality wins out in the end over Warmunist propaganda. However he as a sociologist chooses to label the data. Ma Nature’s stuff isn’t propaganda, it just is.

  38. The so called skeptics are winning the debate as the entire ‘scientific’ basis of the IPCC report is incorrect. The cult of CAGW would lose a formal written scientific debate where name calling, fabrication of data/assertions/analysis, and ignoring of data/analysis that does not support the cult’s paradigm is not allowed.

    There is observational evidence and analysis that supports the assertion that the dang increase in CO2 is not even primarily due to anthropogenic emissions.

    Phase analysis to determine cause and effect.
    http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf

    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
    Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogenic emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyzes suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2

    Analysis of C12/C13 ratio changes that indicates C13 changes do not track anthropogenic emission.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE20-1_Quirk_SS.pdf

    Sources and sinks of CO2 Tom Quirk
    … The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels. ….

    Analysis that indicates CO2 is not the knob that controls the earth’s climate.
    There are periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa. There is paleo observational evidence that very, very large changes in atmospheric CO2 has no significant affect on planetary temperature.

    http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/idclark/courses/Veizer%20Nature%202001.pdf

    Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon
    Certain intervals of the Earth’s history, such as the Middle Cretaceous (about 100 million years (Myr) ago) are characterized by fossil and geologic indicators of global warmth, and by voluminous deposits of volcanic rocks and other indicators of abundant volcanism. Volcanoes are a chief source of CO2 to the atmosphere, so it is reasonable to conclude that atmospheric pCO2 was elevated during such times. However, the times of greatest volcanic activity may not correlate directly with times of greatest warmth3. Moreover, unlike the Pleistocene, there is no direct evidence for CO2 levels in earlier times. Numerical carbon-cycle models that calculate ancient CO2 levels, and pCO2 proxies derived from the isotopic composition of marine organic matter or carbonate nodules in ancient soils, or from the density of stomata on fossil leaves, do generally support the relationship between climate and atmospheric pCO2 on geologic timescales7.

    The data indicate large oscillations of tropical sea surface temperatures in phase with the cold±warm cycles, thus favouring the idea of climate variability as a global phenomenon. But our data conflict with a temperature reconstruction using an energy balance model that is forced by reconstructed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations18. The results can be reconciled if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not the principal driver of climate variability on geological timescales for at least one-third of the Phanerozoic eon, or if the reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations are not reliable.

    And lastly, there is paleo evidence that the planet’s climate changes cyclically, driven by solar cycle changes, with the warming occurring in exactly the same regions that have warmed in the last 150 years. All of the past warming periods were followed by cooling periods, sometimes followed by abrupt cooling periods (i.e. all of the past interglacial periods have ended abruptly).

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years and the warming and cooling cycle occurs in both the glacial and interglacial period which supports the assertion that something external is forcing the earth’s climate.

    Greenland Ice Sheet Temperatures Last 100,000 years

    It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger warming/cooling cycle which has a characteristic period of 1470 years (plus minus a beat of 500 years) has continued throughout the Holocene interglacial period and the Wisconsin glacial period and is also observed in the Antarctic peninsula ice core data which indicates the entire planet is cyclically warming and cooling driven by solar cycle changes.


    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

    Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”

    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

  39. I agree with the sentiment that sociology doesn’t emphasize skepticism or the scientific method near enough – and pretty much that goes for most degrees. I cannot tell you how many people with degrees never take the time to question what they hear, read, or see on TV – unless of course it is counter to their existing beliefs (bias).

    The reason the “skeptics” are winning the argument is because they are mostly right – it isn’t a negative message. The world is not ending, everyone is not going to die (at least not because of CO2 in the air, they will die of something…), and you cannot blame everything on fossil fuels.

    I think many people are beginning to realize just how stupid the argument has become. For most people, it has nothing to do with science – its just common sense. Most people can’t even correctly phrase what the scientific argument is over – most still think its global warming versus not warming. But in any case, they are tired of the message that all evils can be traced to fossil fuels.

    When you try to suppress debate it goes from informing to propaganda – which is what most news agencies are anymore. Somewhere in the not so distant past the School of Journalism lost its way – it has become corrupt in its purpose and actively trying to manipulate the masses – the Nazis and Stalin would be proud of them. OK, so news agencies have been doing this more or less forever, but there was a time when a journalist was taught to provide facts separate from opinions. Now a journalist doesn’t seem to know the difference.

    To my horror I have watched my favorite science magazines, one by one, slide down the slippery slope of fact based peer reviewed articles into drivel. (By drivel, I refer to articles that begin with the premise that AGW is a proven fact and everything else they have to say is based on that premise) You can usually pick out the drivel based on the academics of who wrote the article. People with degrees in environmentalism, biology, botany, sociology, and climatology are by far the worst, but you can find other degrees in the mix. The degrees that seem the least tainted by activism are in physics, statistics, and other “hard” sciences.

    So back to this article, I find it amusing that people are “studying” why the “skeptics” are winning. What they a actually practicing is called rationalization – trying to match dearly held beliefs with reality without ever questioning their beliefs. It something a properly educated scientist is trained to watch out for, not indulge in.

  40. The AGW theory did not get past first base as there has to be trapped warm air in the Tropical Troposphere between 6000-12000ft. Epic fail as the Aqua satellite launched in 2002 found no such evidence…and still hasn’t. Backed up by over 30million weather balloons for over two decades or more. When the 2,000 deleted emails from “Climategate” were revealed Prof Jones from CRU Hadley Centre was caught bemoaning the fact it “was a Tragedy” that they could not find it. In other words they messed up but cannot admit it.
    In fact we have been suffering from “Carbon Dioxide Starvation”….the extinction level for all life on Earth is 150ppm of CO2…at the end of the last Ice Age it was 180ppm….scary! We have had at least 13 times the current 400ppm. CO2 is of great benefit to the planet and there are no down side for it is impossible for CO2 to overheat the planet as it’s ability to create heat is logarithmic. It creates heat when none is there but at around 300ppm the rule of diminishing returns comes into play. If we double today’s 400ppm we would get a degree or so of warming…..but if we double it again we would only get around 1/10th of one degree. What is more it is estimated that there are not enough fossil fuel resources left to double CO2 again after one doubling from current levels.
    The real danger is from severe Global Cooling that could be with us in two decades or so…..the Solar Physicists are quite concerned by the state of the Sun and the behaviour of the Jet Stream is looked on as a precursor to the cooling. You have been warned.
    PS Satellite photos show that the planet has been greening up as the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has aided plant growth and improved crop yields,

    • ‘PS Satellite photos show that the planet has been greening up as the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has aided plant growth and improved crop yields,’
      Would you mind giving a link.
      I had a discussion with my ‘significant other’ that CO2 was actually greening the planet which means the Sahara desert should be greening due to efficient use of H2O by plant stomata.
      There has been discussion about drought in the Middle East causing ISIS.
      But I can’t find that information if indeed it is correct.

      • Lewis, plants require more than CO2 to grow. They also require water and nutritious soil and other climate conditions conducive to plant growth. I highly doubt that areas covered with nothing but blown around sand are going to ever become green. Unless you spray paint it…

        Here’s a couple of links for you though-

        A commentary with supporting links in it-
        http://brennerbrief.com/global-warming-fight-blamed-on-co2/

        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/

        http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/people/professors/prof-ranga-b-myneni/myneni-publications/

      • Dear Mr. Buckingham,

        I hope you find this article helpful: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/31/agu-says-co2-is-plant-food/

        Quote from above article: “Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

        And here’s a “Phys-Org” article:

        http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html

        Best wishes for many more years of joy and first-class communication with your “significant other,”

        Janice

      • Lewis

        Be careful. With knowledge comes responsibility and consequences.
        Will being right about the grass ruin an otherwise pleasant evening ?

        :::: is this how justifying a means to an end gets started … moral minefields ::::

      • Lewis –

        “I had a discussion with my ‘significant other’ that CO2 was actually greening the planet which means the Sahara desert should be greening due to efficient use of H2O by plant stomata.”

        Not necessarily, nor does it mean that Antarctica is becoming green. What the greening that might be attributed to additional CO2 may mean is that places that were green are increasing in area. Dismissing the idea because the Sahara isn’t the new corn belt sounds, to me, like someone who is trying too hard to not accept reality.

      • It is thought that stomal response to higher concentration of CO2 results in reduced water requirement for plants possibly contributing to the observed overall greening of the earth.

      • Lewis/Aphan – never grown tomatoes I take it? Used to grow the best crops in sandy soil. Ever looked at California and Arizona irrigated crops in the “desert”. Southern Alberta and the “Palliser Triangle” where Palliser said farming would never be possible. Reality beats conjecture every time. Yeah, we add water, and we add nutrients. That is to say, we ADAPTED. Not a new thought.

      • “Lewis/Aphan – never grown tomatoes I take it? Used to grow the best crops in sandy soil. Ever looked at California and Arizona irrigated crops in the “desert”. Southern Alberta and the “Palliser Triangle” where Palliser said farming would never be possible. Reality beats conjecture every time. Yeah, we add water, and we add nutrients. That is to say, we ADAPTED. Not a new thought.”

        I grow tomatoes all the time. But there is a huge difference between the “desert sand” in my garden, which exists in a desert region between California and Arizona and the sand in the Sahara Desert. Here’s some reality for you-http://www.sandatlas.org/sand-types/
        Not to mention the atmosphere, extreme temperatures and the unrestricted winds that drive that sand around in massive waves makes farming in the Sahara Desert just about insane. That’s a lot of adaptation.

      • Lewis,
        From the EuMetSat archives – Atlas Mountains in Algeria turn green. This imagery from Meteosat-8 shows the southern side of the Atlas Mountains in Algeria turning green. Date & Time 25 February 2009 10:00
        The Maghreb is not the Sahara?

        Not all the regions of the Maghreb are lucky enough to receive the same steady rainfall as the Atlas Mountains, as the southern portions of the Maghreb fall within the dry lands of the Sahara Desert.

        Maghreb Geography

      • Thank you all for your considered replies.
        Knutesea you are right as rain.
        It was your namesake who demonstrated it is impossible to prevail against one of natures greatest forces.

      • Ah Canute.
        I’m sure even he had trouble remembering when it was worth being right.

        :::: honey, do I look fat in this dress ::::

        ummm, ah … ummm .. errrrr
        no, all I see is natural variability

  41. So let’s see; despite years of cAGW/Climate change/etc. propaganda by the MSM and by government agencies, of bullying tactics, and certain dismissal from jobs if refusing to go along with said propaganda; of an overwhelming Warmunist campaign in the schools, and a war fund of literally $billions, a small, rag-tag, shoe-string budget determined, gumption-filled army on the web is winning. And that both baffles and enrages them. They’ve tried everything; scream louder, softer, threaten with doom, cajole with happy bunnies, flowers and unicorns dancing with polar bears; you name it. It has all failed disasterously.
    Isn’t it wonderful?

  42. The social sciences are broken, irretrievably humpty dumpty. All the king’s horses are the only group that can put the final touches on them. They have been totally co-opted by neoMarksandSpencers, just like CAGW. It is no surprise that all the proponents ‘debate’ these days is being carried by homogenized sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and communications specialists with only their anomalies in evidence. We have the unbelievable spectacle of warming scientists running away from debate right on our television screens.

    Poor Mike Mann is giving the same 2008 speech with his old slides whenever some one wants to give him a prize or something and he answers the same old prepared questions for a dwindling group of admirers. When is the last time we heard from Kevin Travesty, of course he may be snorkeling around looking for missing heat, or Al Gore, whose surreality project went up the Eiffel Tower never to come down – caused, I’m told, by angry Syrian refugees displaced by global warming.

  43. “Surprisingly, none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.”

    Obviously, this psychobabble doublespeak is emblematic of Sociologist/Climate Crusader who is unable to come to terms with contrary perspectives regarding the potential outcomes of CAGW.

  44. trademark ‘climate change’ is a Ponzi scheme labelled ‘science’.

    real science is the first to loose.

    Regards – Hans

    • Be careful with the ripples when the academentia bubble explodes (or bubbles, because I feel the GCM, the psycho-socio, the renewables bubbles are related but distinct).

  45. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views,” says Aaron M. McCright, a Michigan State University environmental scientist.

    “Surprisingly, none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.”

    It seems to me that it is not “extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change”, it is just difficult to change them the way you want to.

  46. Just popped in here for a break after the long UK debate on Syria but I find “opponents of climate change v climate-change advocates” somewhat confusing nomenclature.

    Which group is actually opposing (i.e. attempting to stop) climate change?

    The study itself is, in short, a piece of social research by a scientist from a completely different discipline who fed people fabricated news stories with religious and political sub-plots and concluded that people are “entrenched in their views”.

    Quality!

  47. Like the message (placebo effect) but the messenger is an obvious botch up. His goal is likely more funding to fix the “problem” his study purports to reveal. This is why Sukla’s crew brought in the messaging guru from the tobacco battle. It’s a political messaging battle. Not some much science.

  48. Environmental Scientist = Climate Scientist = Oxymoron.
    Real scientists don’t wear these trendy labels.

  49. Not so much entrenched in my view as unconvinced by the evidence for and more convinced by the evidence against.

  50. What the tools trying to promote the climate apocalypse fail to realize is that over time most people have a pretty good BS detector.
    And while relatively few people understand physics, most people do correctly recognize the BS cliamte hypesters use, even if it is coated in physics.
    A saying in ranch country is that you can put whipped cream on a cow pie, but it still tastes like sh!t.
    Hearing our President literally lie about islands disappearing in the Pacific when they are in fact growing would a good example of that in action.

    • DB

      I followed the back and forth bloodbath yesterday and then went back to look at some of the graphics I’ve picked up over time here. My favorite one for instant impact and really so simple my pompous and perfect neurosurgeon friend and his equally pompous and perfect wife couldn’t undermine was in the latest article by the Lord.

      Figured I’d share.
      Hope it helps in the battle.

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/clip_image010_thumb6.jpg?w=732&h=525

      • LE

        Sorry, not handy. I plucked it from the WUWT Lord Monckton article. I am a man of limited e-paste skills but am trying to learn.

        Seems plain ole copy paste for images doesn’t work all the time with WP. By the time I up my skills I’m sure WUWT will have moved onto holographic 3D projection blogs. Perhaps even talking avatars for posters like yourself.

        [Reply: to paste an image, just copy the address and paste it into your comment. If the address ends with .jpg, .gif, or .png the image will appear. If there are characters after the ‘.jpg’ or the others, delete them first, or the image will only be visible when someone clicks on the URL. ~mod.]

  51. Maybe us skeptics aren’t influencing people as much as we think. Maybe its in part from all of the failed and exaggerated predictions by the believers in HICC (Human-induced climate change) that haven’t been happening that is resulting in the public questioning the HICC’s science?

    • “HICC!” lol — What a person says when drunk.

      (a little comedy relief… Ben? Ben?? watch this :) )

      Foster Brooks and Dean Martin (youtube)
      (a.k.a. Two — HICC! — “Scientists” Meedinuhbar…)

      #(:)) lololololol

      • Janice, I watched this twice, tears streaming down my face with laughter! How I miss television shows like this! I also realize I have a much deeper crush on Dean now than I did as a kid. :)

    • +1 for Captain Obvious :)

      Memo

      To : Staff
      From : Grand PooBah of Spin

      It has come to our attention that a recent percent of the population is noticing that our climate predictions are not occurring. Please execute the following actions post haste:

      1. Reassign the people who started with global warming to the Bernays Remedial Marketing School
      2. Survey the current middle managers for the latest buzzwords in maintaining fear.
      3. Assess how much money is left in the budget for subcontracting out the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Cooling Campaign (CACCC). See if that guy with the solar flare tracker glasses gizmo is still around.

      Please activate all necessary contracting waivers concerning fair practice and protected classes with the exception of my sister-in-law’s proposal. She still lives in the basement and I really can’t handle it much longer.

  52. Aaron M. McCright , name calling and study bias by a git like yourself will automatically put people against your cAGW faith.

    Perhaps Aaron you should familiarize your self with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
    In your study “Participants read fabricated news articles about climate change ” what a moronic way to try and skew your pseudo-science Aaron

  53. The study was based on a lie to begin with, that sceptics denied “deny” that the climate is changing. The NSF funds this junk? Really??

  54. Your tax dollars at work: An NSF-funded ‘study’ that is designed to show that all of the Really Good Things the President wants to do by fighting ‘Climate Change’ (“economic opportunity, national security, Christian stewardship and public health”) are being frustrated by the evil “conservative leaders and Republican politicians.”

    What’s the logical next step? Shut up the heretics (“deniers”). And don’t think they won’t try—using your tax dollars. Has our host been audited yet?

    /Mr Lynn

    • LE

      I trust not, but you can be damn well sure that if you are commenting on this webpage you fit a profile as a nonconformist. You are in some database kept by the government for expressing opinions counter to the current thinkspeak.

      You are also being datamined as we speak for phrases and patterns consistent with a denier. The dataminers then turn that info to the message mapping crew that put your objections into a top 25 list of questions. Those questions get grouped into themes and then master messaged into the top 3 things they want to say to neutralize dissension.

      It’s all a very ugly business these days.
      The only true way to have unintruded debate is in the basement while wearing colanders.

      • knutesea December 2, 2015 at 8:52 pm
        The only true way to have unintruded debate is in the basement while wearing colanders.

        Or not to speak at all. I was just talking with a friend Tuesday evening who fears to say anything more controversial than how her cats are doing, even using a pseudonym. Me, I just put on my colander and type away.

        /Mr Lynn

  55. The “denier” epithet may seem to have a primary purpose of shaming and ridiculing the target, but its real target is the neutral scientist-engineer-statistician who might other examine the evidence for themselves. Its use is intended to dissaude independent analyses of climate change proponent’s supposed scientific basis of anthropogenic warming, which is of course shoddy science at best, fraudulent at worst.

  56. I notice that right now Scientific American seems to be changing their tune (??) – they have just published two sceptic articles, one by Matt Ridley and one about sensitivity to CO2.

  57. For Jeff in Calgary, Dave in Canmore and any other like minded Canadians, with thanks to Josh, Alberta joins Ontario, Quebec (and BC) in the fight against climate change:

  58. “This is the first experiment of its kind to examine the influence of the denial messages on American adults,” said Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”

    I don’t know, but it just seems very unprofessional for somebody with advanced degree in sociology working in academia to putting a “denier” label on people. One would think that an individual who is supposed to be educated to this degree would know better than to pick sides in the CAGW debate when studying it from a sociological perspective; are not psychologists and sociologists supposed to be neutral when they study things like this?

    I guess this demonstrates how much professionalism has deteriorated in academia. Disgusting to see it happening.

    • What happened to the idea that science requires distanciation and objectivity?

      Now the “science process” and methodology is just about submission to journals, editors, peer review, reviews, and publication. And maybe impact factor and quantitative research evaluation.

  59. I haven’t read the “study,” but wouldn’t it be important to have knowledge of the study participants’ position on climate change prior to subjecting them to the made up statements? Did they look at that? If 99% went into it thinking climate alarmism is nonsense, and are then presented with the “negative” messages (and, hello, just calling them “negative” is a demonstration of bias), wouldn’t we expect a high percentage to simply see those messages as confirming the beliefs that they held anyway (i.e., the “denier” message basically had no influence, because they already believed that)?

    Science in this country has taken a huge hit. It’s at the point where I do not have confidence in any of the traditionally science-heavy agencies (e.g., NASA and NOAA). The incessant call to shut down debate is astounding. As a scientist (physicist), I’m seriously frightened about our future, and not because I fear the climate changing (it always has and always will), but because the whole understanding of how science actually works is being politically defined, confined, and corrupted.

    Barbara L. Hamrick

    • “Science in this country has taken a huge hit. It’s at the point where I do not have confidence in any of the traditionally science-heavy agencies (e.g., NASA and NOAA). The incessant call to shut down debate is astounding. As a scientist (physicist), I’m seriously frightened about our future, and not because I fear the climate changing (it always has and always will), but because the whole understanding of how science actually works is being politically defined, confined, and corrupted.
      Barbara L. Hamrick”

      Powerful paragraph Hamrick.
      As trite as it may sound, the freedom for science to conduct its objective methods is under attack.
      That attack is also an attack on freedom of expression/speech. That attack is an attack on the rights commoners achieved post Magna Carta.

      Science has not forgotten how to practice the scientific method. Its objectivity has been coopted. While this is not new, it certainly is being done on a grand scale for a grand topic. It could be that people won’t miss it until it is gone.

      Hope not, but that seems to be human nature.

  60. When a record is broken on every race in a world championship, the public, reasonably, doubts the results. Too good to be true is often fake. Even great sport champions don’t always win.

    When everything is “explained” by climate change/global warming, what do you expect?

    And why don’t we see the negative results in biomedicine?

  61. If this study has any importance, it’s fleeting and certainly not science. This was an exercise in marketing and public perception. Why was it even funded by the National $cience Foundation? After all, the National $cience Foundation is supposed to produce science, not propaganda.

    This outfit is in serious need of a labotomy.
    Lamar Smith should take a hard look at what it’s doing with taxpayers’ dollars.

  62. Quote: … suggests opponents of climate change appear to be winning the war of words.

    Aren’t the opponents of climate change also known as the alarmists? I’m not sure the author of the paper means what he wrote.

  63. Well. Abe. (o_o)

    Not sure about all you wrote, but one thing is quite clear from what you wrote:

    You like pot — a lot.

    • Nope (lol). Abe is obviously on the rolling team. HICC! er, no, I mean, cough… cough… ggggiiiiigggggglle (well, I’ve heard that is what potheads do — cough and giggle a lot). And stink — THAT I have experiential knowledge of. “What was that stench back there?!?” I asked my companion. “THAT was pot (sp?),” he said.

  64. It requires but one tyrant to foil the public mood. A 100% consensus matters little unless we vote accordingly. The three branches of US government were to act as checks and balances and if that should fail as it has we the people are duty-bound to change course with our vote. Unfortunately we the people have been educated for decades by the three branches of government that now behave as one. We’re too ignorant as a population to avert our fall from the world of free men. We’re the last nation to do so, so there’s a certain sense of inevitability in that. That makes us the worst generation.

  65. The silly thing is that climate change proponents should be celebrating the pause. We have beat global warming! Of course, we know it’s just about politics, but doesn’t that prove it.

  66. I’m with Janice on this one…you like pot a lot. Someone needs to take the keyboard away from you and remove your caps lock key for starters.

    • “The phase change refrigerant of the atmosphere is water. Phase change of evaporation takes energy from the surface to lose it to higher regimes of atmospheric molecules, condensing back into another phase, the solid phase, returning to earth more swiftly than if it remained in the gas state.’

      This is rain, right ?

    • Abe,
      “That’s how it is. If you think you know something that needs to be said, say it.
      I’m sure a lot of the people from your religion are anxious to finally see someone defend it.”

      Oh, so much is obvious to the rest of us, but might need to be said to you:
      You have the most interesting way of making something “so simple” into something incoherent, and your constant assumptions and flawed insinuations about people are so off-putting, that you ironically make things more difficult than they have to be.

      For example-
      “That’s why you’re mad.”
      I’m not mad.

      “You think the atmosphere is a big old giant heater in the sky like the government told you.”
      I believe nothing of the sort.

      “The same way they told you the same thing about pot being like heroin.”
      The government has never told “me” anything about pot being like heroin, nor have I read anything from anyone, in particular the government, telling me that it is. My personal opinion is that extracts from the marijuana plant show promising results for medical patients who have cancer and certain types of seizures, but that “smoking” anything (lighting something on fire and inhaling the resulting discharge from it) is a stupid and dangerous practice not only for health reasons, but because it makes people do idiotic, stupid, dangerous things. Now, if you want to do stupid, idiotic and dangerous things at home, on your own, in situations where you can’t affect or hurt someone else GO FOR IT. But the moment you step into “society” and behave that way, society gets to react in the manner required by the degree of stupid exhibited.

      Question-when you were typing the vast majority of your posts here, were you under the influence of pot? Or is your bizarre composition style just a personality quirk?

  67. Sad commentary on the level of education in this country when garbage like this is produced. When he looks out the window and sees the snow coming down, what is he thinking? When the temperature falls below freezing in October, does he think, ahhh winter will end in January? This is weather and not climate? Maybe some of his tests subject aren’t quite brainwashed enough… yet. They are still believing what they’re seeing and not what they are told.
    Why did this even make the news?

  68. Right on dawg….
    “Judith Curry calls that the iatrogenic effect. Where a proctor’s actions induce harm on the subject.”

    Which then induces iatrogenic poverty.

  69. “That’s the power of the denial message,” said McCright, associate professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.”

    No, that’s the power of thinking for one’s self. Changing people’s minds is very easy to do when you can present a cogent argument.

    • The cogent argument only works if you understand what is preventing the listener from absorbing it.
      Some common possibilities are :

      1. fear of being wrong/imperfect
      2. fear of losing control in being to accomplish the mission
      3. fear of being unliked/left out.
      4. fear of being ignored/unappreciated

      Each fear needs to hear the cogent message differently in order to register in the brain.

      • Not disagreeing with you; however, my point is that when warmists fail to convince skeptics, like me, instead of trying to improve their argument, they usually resort to one or more logical fallacies, like Appeal to Pity, Argument from Motives, Argumentum ad Baculam, Argumentum ad Populum, Big Lie Technique, Blind Loyalty, Either-Or Reasoning, Equivocation, False Analogy, Finish the Job, The Half Truth, Just in Case, Lying with Statistics, Name-Calling, Non Sequitur, Overgeneralization, Playing on Emotion, Post Hoc Argument, Red Herring, Reductionism, Scare Tactic, Shifting the Burden of Proof, Slippery Slope, Snow Job, Straw Man, Taboo, Testimonial, Ad Hominem, fait accompli, We Have to Do Something, Jumping to a Conclusion, Zero Tolerance.

        Ya, I think that pretty much covers it…

        http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

  70. real science is a personal struggle, much like that of the starving artist.

    Consider Einstein as he developed his theory of relativity whilst whilst featherbedding at a patent office. Most likely came close to getting fired on many an occasion. (The modern equivalent would be someone shopping on line at work).
    The best thing is it worked, and no one could refute it to this day. Now a “scientist” could not do this as he would have to prostitute himself to the rigors of grant seeking, the new rent seeking. It takes balls to do real science.

  71. Ah, I see, it is our “entrenched views” that make us more believing of the “denial” messages. Not the fact that the majority of us go outside once in a while…

  72. The supposition is false from the get-go, “with messages denying the existence of global warming.”

    That’s not what anti-Warmistas believe; indeed, everybody that’s awake knows the earth has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA.

    We just don’t think it’s man’s fault.

    • “everybody that’s awake knows the earth has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA.
      We just don’t think it’s man’s fault.”

      I’ve been using this information outside the webworld and while I’m not surprised that it is resisted, I am surprised about the consistent pattern or style of rebuttal

      1. oh, where did you get that info …
      2. those ice cores are from the poles, they can’t possibly represent the whole earth
      3. then usually the barrage of everything from polar ice sheets to polar bears and increasing frequency of foul weather.
      4. the more edumacated dive into greater minutia such as the radiative forces of extra CO2, tipping points and mm changes in sea levels.

      What I see so far is where you get your paycheck from matters a great deal. If your organization promotes the ruse, you do to. They fear for their jobs. Free speech is definitely taking a hit.

      I also see folks who just want to belong to something (be liked).

      The really smart people don’t want to be seen as being wrong. IF you show them a chart with temp and CO2 over time like Lord Monckton produced they damn near have a cow.

      It’s complicated.

  73. So, the notion that things aren’t as bad as we were at first told is now a “negative view”.

    In a follow up study will they be explaining how “up” is “down”?

  74. Until now, most people just assumed climate change deni*rs were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.

    I’m betting that Aaron is the kind of self absorbed holier-than-thou type who reads every word written about him, mostly because it feeds into his smug self image of intellectual superiority. So, Aaron, this one is for you.

    You did nothing of the sort. If you’ll respond here I’ll be happy to explain exactly where you went wrong.

  75. Who is the denialist Mr Aaron McCright? Do you know and can explain the science of catastrophic global warming?

  76. I can’t give too much credence to “sociologists” who think in the simplistic terms of “conservatives and liberals”. Private Willis was singing about Victorian Britain, and he was wrong then.

  77. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”

    This sentence shows his bias. He could have said:

    “Until now, most people just assumed that the pro CAGW propaganda of the media and politicians has little influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”

  78. What a stupid man (Aaron); nobody on this side is denying climate change. We are debating the human impact and extent; evidence for cagw (models) and the scientific arguments against.
    No wonder his team are in trouble!

  79. bad turn of events in Australia. PM Turnbulll’s wife has just been appointed Chair of a body with plenty of CAGW clout!

    3 Dec: SMH: Jacob Saulwick: Lucy Turnbull to run Greater Sydney Commission
    Lucy Turnbull will head the new organisation charged with overseeing planning and development across Sydney.
    Ms Turnbull, a former Lord Mayor of Sydney, had been favoured to be selected to chair the Greater Sydney Commission, a new body with significant powers to steer the future direction of the city…
    “The Greater Sydney Commission has the great potential to be a transformational way of having a collaborative working model for state and local government which has often not been the case in metropolitan Sydney,” she said.
    The Greater Sydney Commission will have the power to create plans for development and public space across the city…
    There will also be independent environment, economic and social commissions, as well as six district commissioners, nominated by councils but appointed by the minister.
    The heads of three government departments – Planning and Environmental, Transport for NSW, and NSW Treasury – will sit on the commission…
    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lucy-turnbull-to-run-greater-sydney-commission-20151203-gleai8.html

    12 Nov: Clayton Utz: Strategic Planning for NSW: the Greater Sydney Commission and a new Part 3B
    By Brendan Bateman and Alison Packham
    The Greater Sydney Commission Bill 2015 does more than establish the Greater Sydney Commission; a new Part 3B in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act would introduce strategic planning into NSW’s planning law.
    The Greater Sydney Commission Bill 2015 passed the lower house of Parliament on 28 October 2015, signalling a commitment to strategic, interdisciplinary and collaborative planning, which has been on the agenda since the planning law review process of 2011-2013…
    Part 3B will create a hierarchy of plans, where these regional and district plans will guide the development of local environmental plans (LEPs). Part 3B will require LEPs be prepared “to give effect to” regional and district plans; on the making of a district plan, each relevant council must review its LEP, prepare a planning proposal necessary to give effect to the district plan, and report to the GSC on its review and proposed amendments to its LEP…
    ***Following a whole of government approach, the GSC will be charged with co-ordinating the different levels of government involved in infrastructure and land use decisions, guided by the principles of ecological sustainable development…
    2. Encourage development that is resilient and takes into account natural hazards
    The GSC will assist Sydney councils to develop resilience plans to address the risks posed by climate change. Many Sydney councils have already begun this process.
    3. Promote orderly development in the Greater Sydney Region having regard to the economic, social and environmental principles of ecologically sustainable development…
    https://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/12_november_2015/20151112/strategic_planning_for_nsw_the_greater_sydney_commission_and_a_new_part_3b.page

  80. I recomment that Aaron the Sociologist should read the peer reviewed paper The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline. He needs to get up to speed on science.

  81. “george e. smith

    December 2, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    A biased ” study ” at the outset.”

    Exactly my thought too!

  82. Wayne Delbeke
    December 3, 2015 at 1:40 am

    It’s much worse than I thought in Alberta. Apparently the Big FOUR energy producers in the Oil Sands have been negotiating a secret deal with “BIG GREEN” and the ND government in Alberta. In return for putting a 30% CAP on development of oil sands emissions, (the current developers essentially get to keep most of the oil sands development to themselves thus freezing out competition) and in return the Enviros from the United States and Canada have agreed to stop opposing pipelines so the Oil Sands producers can get their product to tidewater.

    The four producers head people stood behind the NDP Premier while she made the announcement on the Cap. They are not only supporting the destruction of the coal industry to their benefit, but these four players have essentially screwed every other oil and gas company in Alberta by colluding with BIG GREEN and the NDP Government, a government that followed the Obama mantra of “open” government. Yup, open alright. Open to a select few. I imagine this will go down just about as well as P.E. Trudeau’s National Energy Policy (NEP) back in the 80’s. There will be war in the patch in Alberta.

    Other producers are furious as will be other investors who were planning and just completing other Oil Sands projects. I have to think Law Suits are being prepared as I write this both by the Oil Companies and parts of “BIG GREEN” that weren’t in on the negotiations.

    Here is the tip of the ice berg:

    http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/secret-deal-on-albertas-oilsands-emission-limits-divides-patch

    I’ll repeat what I said earlier today about our left wing governments in Canada by stealing a saying using slightly different words:

    First they came for the coal companies, and I did not speak out –
    Because I was not a coal company.

    Then they came for the oil companies, and I did not speak out –
    Because I was not an oil company.

    Then they came for the gas companies, and I did not speak out –
    Because I was not a gas company.

    Then they came for you – and there was no one left to speak for you.

    Bill McKibben must be having a heart attack!

    Watch for more news on this later today, December 3, a day of infamy in the Oil Patch.

    I imagine CAPP meetings will be rather difficult over the next few weeks. CAPP is the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. There are going to be a lot of very angry executives from companies and investors who have now effectively been frozen out of Oil Sands development.

    I also imagine that a lot of people that were against the pipelines are going to feel stabbed in the back by their compadres.

    Interesting times.

    Wayne Delbeke

    • France has 63 GW of nuclear capacity (with 58 reactors in 19 plants, only PWR: France has no fast reactor anymore, after 37 years of demonstration of the sodium cooled Phénix).

      The socialists made a deal with the “greens”. The deal was very stupid, saying that MOX was to be stopped (when France has too much Pu from La Hague used fuel treatment plant), so the deal was rewritten to promise one plant would be closed, the oldest one: Fessenheim (the one near the Greenpeace, sorry, German frontier).

      Despite the presidential promise of closing Fessenheim, no reactor have been closed, and both Fessenheim reactors have been updated with a poor man’s core catcher.

      The government isn’t eager to close a plant and deal with the furious workers, furious families and furious community. The plant owners (EDF majority + German and Swiss minorities) don’t want to close the plant. This is a plant whose production is partly owned by foreign societies, so in order to close it the State would need to indemnify the foreign owners.

      Now the greens have broken up with the government so there is even less desire to close the plant. But the socialists still want to look “green”, so they wrote a law:
      – stating that the goal is to go from 80% to 50% nuclear in electric energy production (in 10 years, so long after the term of these elected clowns)
      – capping nuclear capacity to 63 GW

      The capping is a legal issue obviously, as officially there is no monopoly on energy production and nuclear plans, so any society could meet the insane regulator demands (*) and build a reactor.

      The capping is illegal according to some analysts.

      (*) Bouygues, the concrete pourer, couldn’t manage to correctly pour concrete for the used fuel pool of the new Flamanville because of … rebars. More steel than concrete according to some people. Result: the concrete couldn’t get in and there were hole and the whole stuff was destroyed and redone. Who asked for so much steel?

  83. “messages denying the existence of global warming….”
    He’s a complete idiot. No serious sceptics deny the existence of global warming, that would be ridiculous. In fact an important sceptical argument is that the climate is always changing.

    Of course, sceptics will eventually win, because they have truth and integrity on their side. But it will take time….
    Chris

  84. I just read the first sentence of the abstract:
    “Prior research on the influence of various ways of framing anthropogenic climate change (ACC) do not account for the organized ACC denial in the U.S. media…”

    Prior research do not…

    Clearly elementary grammar of sentence construction isn’t required in sociology research

    • I can’t think of single main stream media source that is not completely in the tank for the ACC meme.

      • (Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Dawg and Michael- don’t tell the “mainstream” press or pretty much anyone else that! The idea that Fox is mainstream isn’t something that everyone agrees with, trust me. (Hence the nicknames like Faux Media etc)

  85. Herd mentality and mass hysteria about many things, especially weather and climate is entrancing for some, as history and current topics show so clearly. While our U.S. government is engaged in American Lysenko-ism, the corruption of some sciences within their agencies to achieve a political end that has little to do with AGW or saving the planet, it’s like skeptical, objective opinions win battles, but the war is far from won. Our Dear Leader, bless his pointed, little head, Mr. Obama and his minions, prance forward in their brave new world, waging war against the changing climate and insist that the JV team is contained. Orwell, Huxley and Kafka nod.

  86. Thanks Arron for your research into this matter.

    It shows that there is certainly no consensus about global warming in the minds of the public. Having read literally hundreds of articles on the subject my conclusions are: the climate has always been changing; people are trying to raise alarm over quite ordinary weather events, seeking to blame human behaviours and influences as their cause; there is no truly scientific, validated manner in which to separate weather events that are not exceptional in recorded history from a ‘human influenced’ weather event.

    Models projecting global temperatures have manifestly failed to produce results close to observed temperatures over the past 25 year period. The possibility that other members or the public are aware of this cannot be ignored in such a survey. The survey questions implicitly assume that anyone who has researched the facts of the matter in depth, is a ‘denier’ of facts not in existence. An alarming claim repeated in the New Work Times is not a ‘fact’. The motivations of beneficiaries of proposed changes in public policy should be examined critically to ensure the public interest is served.

    Creating a fund to assist the under-developed nations is a noble goal. I am all for it. Basing it on whimsical stories about ‘climate damage’ is both unnecessary and in fact, morally tainted for it requires a lot of people to present a lot of stretched truths as facts. Misrepresenting reality is not a path to progress or development.

  87. Abe, this is a little more coherent than your previous posts in this thread that occasioned joking about how much you liked MJ. You raise the interesting question, usually dodged by all sides of the debate, of how any component of the atmosphere can be said to warm the Earth.

    With no atmosphere and, say, one-year rotation (so one side always faced the sun), the sunny side ground would be comparable to the Moon in its day (123º C) and the dark side close to absolute zero (with some heating from within). Add an atmosphere and the 24-hour rotation and the surface will cool down some in the day and warm up in the dark, but your point that the surface retains heat more than the atmosphere (which is blowing all over and is open to space) should be well-taken. I’m not sure that it is. Could the tiny percentage of CO2 have any ‘blanketing’ effect? And even water vapor, said to be a ‘greenhouse gas’, keeps changing state, so it probably has multiple effects, all temporary.

    To stay on-topic, it may be that the best way to counter the Climatistas, aside from touting the manifest benefits to the biosphere of CO2, is to point out that on net the atmosphere is always conducting heat away from the surface of the Earth; the exceptions where warmer air blows in somewhere are inevitably transitory.

    Perhaps this could be made into a bumper sticker: “We do NOT live in a Greenhouse!”

    /Mr Lynn

    • Mr. Lynn,

      That was a gracious attempt to try to rehabilitate Witness Abe whose testimony was unravelling as he spoke it. Like your “bumper sticker” (nicely states a powerful argument against AGW).

      But…. unfortunately…. I think Abe does live in a greenhouse… .

      Heh.

      Janice

    • Abe’s observations are interesting. I don’t remember any discussion of the role of ‘greenhouse gases’ (water vapor, CO2, methane) blocking a large portion of solar energy from reaching the surface of the Earth. But to the extent a portion of the Sun’s energy is in the infrared, they must.

      I think Abe is worth listening to. His style of writing leads me to wonder if perhaps English is not his native tongue. I’d like to see more of his thoughts on the Earth’s energy budget. Is there a paper, or website?

      /Mr Lynn

    • L.E. Joiner-
      “I don’t remember any discussion of the role of ‘greenhouse gases’ (water vapor, CO2, methane) blocking a large portion of solar energy from reaching the surface of the Earth. But to the extent a portion of the Sun’s energy is in the infrared, they must.”

      When you say you don’t remember any discussion…does that mean any discussion on WUWT, or in your own personal experience? Because the fact that some GHG’s’ do absorb some of the incoming solar energy, and some do not, is basic scientific knowledge to pretty much anyone, and is not under dispute. Even NASA will tell you that.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

      But the energy from the Sun, enters our atmosphere as short wave radiation, and some GHG’s only absorb and re-emit long wave thermal radiation. The ones that don’t absorb and emit short wave infared radiation don’t affect or block the incoming energy from the sun, they only SLOW the return of that energy to space after it’s been absorbed (as short wave radiation) by the surface and re-emitted by the surface as long wave radiation.

    • Aphan:

      “But the energy from the Sun, enters our atmosphere as short wave radiation, and some GHG’s only absorb and re-emit long wave thermal radiation.”

      But Abe says:

      40% of the sun’s energy is in infrared energy in the same spectra as radiated by the earth. [my emphasis]

      The so called green house gases are the ones that stop half that, 20% sun energy from ever making it to the surface to warm the earth.

      That’s what I hadn’t heard before, here or anywhere—not that I read or remember everything on the subject, not by a long shot. Is it not true?

      /Mr Lynn

      • Mr Lynn, I think that there are many, MANY things being posted by Abe that you’ll never hear here, or anywhere else on the internet where intelligent, logical conversations take place. Trying to engage with someone so clearly entrenched in “the crazy” is noble, but inevitably futile. I wish you luck. I’m turning the name calling, hostile, repetitive, vulgar, off topic posts to me from him over to the mods to deal with. :)

    • Aphan December 5, 2015 at 4:21 pm: Guess I don’t spend enough time on these Comment threads to pick up on all the bickering. Can’t even say I’ve seen Abe’s comments before, or paid any mind to them.

      So what percentage of the Sun’s incoming radiation is in the infrared spectra? A quick search suggests it does look like a fair percentage:

      This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

      /Mr Lynn

  88. Wow, where’d this guy get his degrees, K-Mart? The only thing worthy of being studied here is this guy’s soft mind and how it was so easily molded by “the message.”

    • Hey now…I find that to be an offensive inference towards K-Mart! Even if they DID sell degrees, they might very well refuse to sell one to him. :-)

  89. Fancy calling us the D-word for not believing their garbage models. There is only one group using the d-word, which actually represent themselves, against the people with different views because they actually use science with scientific observations. The alarmist are the d-word when it comes to anything else other than garbage models and especially anti-scientific regarding observations. What else will the alarmist government scientist lot call the skeptics that they already do, but skeptics actually don’t?

  90. In the end, it won’t matter if skeptics have truth and respect for the scientific method on their side. Obama, and the EPA, and the U.N., will simply deem and do.

  91. just plant some more trees. how frick’in simple can it be. the arsewipe from down under planted trees after he got stuck and pulled out of the ice in Antactic last year. remember. that was his get out of jail free card.

  92. If sceptics are right then there can only be one outcome, the public will see the light. The truth always comes out in the end. Here is an example of utter bafflement. Belief in something DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. When you see right wing AND left wing newspapers agreeing, then you have a problem.

    Saturated fats will give you a heart attack or what???? Butter is bad??? So many decades of belief did not stop the facts, or lack of facts being exposed.
    http://tinyurl.com/q3hqfvc (study)

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29616418

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/22/butter-cheese-saturated-fat-hear

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2946617/Butter-ISN-T-bad-Major-study-says-80s-advice-dairy-fats-flawed.html

    Global warming is real, but what has caused most of the global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age? This is the debate. Don’t get sidelined about ‘denying’ global warming as the above post mentions. There was a warming spike from 1910 to 1940, (and one in the late 19th century) this is a problem for the warmist folks.

  93. From one of his sites:

    “His intellectual agenda is to enhance our sociological understanding of how interrelationships among scientific developments, political processes, and social dynamics influence society’s capacity for recognizing and dealing with environmental degradation and technological risks.

    Dr. McCright is most well-known for his work analyzing the political dynamics and public understanding of climate science and policy in the United States—especially organized climate change denial and political polarization on climate change. Integrating insights from scholarship on power, social movements, and reflexive modernization, he has developed the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis to explain how and why certain industries, political organizations, and members of the general public deny the reality and seriousness of climate change.”

    He has spent most of his life doing what he is doing. What will he do once he realizes it was all crap … .

    Why do I deny the “reality AND seriousness of climate change” as the “reality AND seriousness of climate change” is defined by people like McCright? Same reason that I deny the Boogyman as it defined by scared small children; not to say that there aren’t real folks that are just as (or even more so) scary than the fictional Boogyman. Just scroll up to the top and see the photo at the right.

  94. Good grief!

    “. . . he has developed the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis to explain how and why certain industries, political organizations, and members of the general public deny the reality and seriousness of climate change.”

    Clearly to McCright and his ilk “climate change,” by which we must assume he means the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming, is not a theory, nor even an hypothesis, but a dogma, a Received Truth, to which any objection is nothing less than heresy. This is the surest sign of a religious orthodoxy, that welcomes only True Believers.

    Should he be surprised, then, that some people who value freedom of thought and the scientific method, object to being told to accept the dogma of “Climate Change” on faith, just because the elite High Priests have proclaimed it?

    Worse, should we be surprised that our taxpayer dollars have gone to support this academic charlatan, enabling him to earn a living by studying why rational people refuse to pay proper obeisance to the gods of Climate Change?

    No, we should not. One thing about a big fraud: it breeds lots of little ones, in service to the Master Hoax. The High Priests must have their lesser acolytes, of which this McCright is clearly one.

    /Mr Lynn

  95. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views,” says Aaron M. McCright, a Michigan State University environmental scientist.

    According to this recent piece from the arch-warmist BBC, it would seem McCright is in fact highly mistaken.

    COP21: Public support for tough climate deal ‘declines’

    Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.

    Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

    In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.

    The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

    Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.

    The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34900474

    But not in the way McCright would prefer…

    Seems us “climate change deniers” are winning – big style.

    Perhaps it has something to do with that old fable about the boy who cried “WOLF!”.

    • catweazel666 (I adore your nickname!)
      Be very careful about analogies. In the end of that fable, there really WAS a wolf and skeptics ignore alarmists for totally different reasons than the reasons the villagers finally stopped listening to the boy in the story. :)

      • “In the end of that fable, there really WAS a wolf…”

        And that of course is the real danger of the way the alarmists have managed to drag science and scientists into disrepute, and not just in the field of climate either.

  96. Interesting use of words. I would say that the alarmists are the _opposers_ of climate change and sceptics are the advocates. I think most skeptics think we should let it happen because it is either not harmful or not happening.

    I think they mean advocates and opposers of _action_ on climate change. But I’d have expected an academic to see the difference.

  97. Sorry, If this has been addressed up thread. I normally and dutifully read every post before commenting but I’m in the middle of proceedings that are taking up most of my available RAM. However, I can’t let go of the purulent and pejorative use of the d-word. This dismissive term used in any situation, really means game over, in terms of debate. Any argument presented by a d-worder is a priori an irrational position. But arguments and ideas, have a life of their own and the truth or otherwise of a notion is independent of the vehicle that conveys it. Truth, despite current propaganda, is utterly and absolutely independent. I don’t care how confronting anybodies opinion is, I could never honestly contest it by dismissing them. I would have to make a case and argue it. Everything else is slander.

  98. All the seasons are exactly the same as when I was a very small child with the same old usual random weather. For that alone I cannot believe in this climate change BS. Nothing has changed.

  99. Mods- Abe’s comments here, while prior to this have just been random and odd, have become very insulting both personally and socially. Not to mention completely off topic.

  100. Abe December 4, 2015 at 2:18 pm: “When you start admitting you don’t have the slightest idea about the nature of reality it’s not making everyone else look like uneducable dolts, it makes YOU look like one.”

    Your posts appear to epitomise your not having the slightest idea about the nature of reality yourself.

    Was it the 1976 black microdot?

    I heard it could do that to some people.

  101. Ah….ABE…initials referring to Allen B. Eltor! Just a quick internet search revealed so much about you. Sadly, your internet postings reveal not only that you make wild insinuations about people with absolutely no evidence to back them up, but that you’re also not very creative because everything you’ve posted here is pretty much the same thing you’ve posted elsewhere, right down to the insults.

    You claim (elsewhere) to have spent 20 years in “aircraft instrumentation” and calibrating “atmospheric sensing equipment on commercial airlines”. I wonder if you show the same disturbing personality disorders at work or is your online persona and advocacy against all things “Gubbmit” just something you do to amuse yourself?

  102. Wouldn’t it be the ultimate of ironies if the greatest political (w help from bad science) hoax of modern times, CAGW, blinded us from seeing the rather cold climate that’s coming by 2020 ?

    Molten salt reactor tech won’t be off the shelf ready by then.
    Fossils might be shuttered in and facilities to convert them to energy mothballed.
    Snow and ice can’t be the friend of solar and wind work.

    We could have a real threat to the food supply.
    That would be very bad.
    2020 .. 5 years.

Comments are closed.