An academic group of climate communicators shameless propagandists from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication Professional School of Public Manipulation and Indoctrination recently conducted a survey. Then they “analyzed” the results of their subjective questions and concluded they are very smart, that they need to gesticulate more, and scream louder.
These findings indicate that it is vital to communicate the five key facts about climate change: scientists agree, it’s real, it’s us, it’s bad, and there’s hope.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/
My commentary on this masturbatory “study” follows:
The Enigma of American Concern
What do Americans really want to know about climate change? The inquiry, as posed by a cadre of academics in a recent survey, might seem significant on its surface. Yet, it spirals into a narrative that inadvertently showcases a profound confusion and a hint of orchestrated alarmism about our environmental future. The revelation that a majority accept global warming as both real and human-caused should give the “researchers” orgasms, but the devil, as always, is in the details—or the lack thereof.
Skimming the Surface of Inquiry
The findings expose a painful, (for the “researchers”) truth: only a meager fraction, one in five, believe their orchestrated narrative that over 90% of climate scientists allegedly agree on human-caused global warming. It’s a statistic thrown around like a badge of consensus, yet beneath it lies a sea of untouched skepticism and unanswered questions.
The researchers’ methodology? They asked Americans what they would query a climate expert, assuming, of course, that such exchanges would yield enlightenment. It demonstrates the “researchers” obeisance to the cult of credentialism. This approach is as silly and idealistic as asking a child what they would ask an astronaut; the whimsy outstrips the weight of the questions.
Respondents were asked, “If you had the opportunity to talk to an expert on global warming, which of the following questions would you like to ask?” Then, they were provided a list of 13 potential questions to choose from. Next, respondents were asked to choose the one question they were most interested in.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/
Cataloging Confusion or Curated Ignorance?
The survey sorted inquiries into four categories: evidence, causes, impacts, and solutions. Under ‘evidence,’ we find queries from the existentially troubled “Is global warming really happening?” to the dramatically charged “Is global warming a hoax?” It’s less a scientific inquiry, more a probe into public gullibility.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/
- Evidence includes three questions about the existence of global warming: “Is global warming really happening?” “How do you know that global warming is happening?” and “Is global warming a hoax?”
- Causes refers to two questions about the primary causes of global warming: “What causes global warming?” and “How do you know that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, not natural changes in the environment?”
- Impacts refers to three questions about the harms from global warming: “What harm will global warming cause?” “Will global warming harm people?” and “When will global warming begin to harm people?”
- Solutions includes five questions about the actions needed to reduce global warming: “What can the United States do to reduce global warming?” “What can I do to reduce global warming?” “How much would it cost the United States to reduce global warming?” “What can the nations of the world do to reduce global warming?” and “Is there still time to reduce global warming, or is it too late?”
The ’causes’ category teeters between blaming human activities and natural environmental changes. This dichotomy serves less to enlighten and more to muddle, framing a complex interplay of factors as a simple either/or scenario.
In the ‘impacts’ section, questions like “What harm will global warming cause?” and “When will it begin to harm people?” reflect a sensationalist tone—fearmongering rather than fact-seeking.
The ‘solutions’ inquiries betray a tone of desperation, ranging from national to individual actions. It reads like a script from a disaster movie where the characters are scrambling to avert an apocalypse crafted in a Hollywood studio rather than one based on rigorous scientific inquiry.
Demographics and Their Discontents
The study also delves into demographics, revealing expected divides: urban, educated, Democratic respondents lean towards proactive queries, while rural, less-educated, Republican respondents question the foundational reality of climate change. This isn’t a mere academic division; it’s a stark illustration of the ideological echo chambers shaping public discourse on climate.
The topics people would ask about differ across demographic and political groups. The groups most likely to ask about solutions include liberal Democrats (71%), moderate/conservative Democrats (59%), people with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (55%), and urban residents (53%). By contrast, the groups most likely to ask questions about evidence include conservative Republicans (37%), rural residents (28%), liberal/moderate Republicans (28%), people with high school or less education (27%), and people who earn less than $50,000 annually (27%). Additionally, compared to the general U.S. population, liberal/moderate Republicans (18%) and Independents (17%) are more likely to ask about impacts, and conservative Republicans (33%) are more likely to ask about causes.
The Six Americas: Dividing More Than Uniting
The segmentation of Americans into categories from the Alarmed to the Dismissive might be academically convenient but socially divisive. It caricatures public perception into extremes of panic or apathy, neglecting the nuanced middle ground where skepticism thrives on rigorous scrutiny, not dismissive denial.
Topics also vary across Global Warming’s Six Americas. A large majority of the Alarmed (82%) and about half of the Concerned (53%) would ask about solutions, while fewer of the Cautious (26%), Disengaged (10%), Doubtful (12%), and Dismissive (3%) would do so. Conversely, these latter four segments most want to ask about either the causes of global warming or evidence that it is happening (about half or more of these segments would ask about either of these topics). Compared with the general U.S. population, the Dismissive (50%) are more likely to ask about the evidence, followed by the Disengaged (40%), Doubtful (30%), and Cautious (28%). Also, the Doubtful (35%) are more likely than the general U.S. population to ask about causes, followed by the Cautious (28%) and Dismissive (28%). The Concerned (16%) are more likely than the general U.S. population to ask about the impacts from global warming.
Top Queries: A Reflection of Divergence or Disinformation?
The most popular questions—”Is it too late to reduce global warming?” and “Is global warming a hoax?”—serve as bookends to the narrative of doom and skepticism. They reflect not a genuine quest for knowledge but rather the success of polarizing narratives that have infiltrated public consciousness.
Concluding with a Hint of Disdain
This survey, while aiming to shed light on public curiosity, unwittingly obscures any genuine debate. It highlights not just an interest in climate issues but a profound disorientation within the American psyche, fed by a diet of dramatic headlines and apocalyptic forecasts.
The real question isn’t what Americans want to know about climate change, but why they are asking these questions in the first place. It is not a search for truth. It exposes the result of being caught in a crossfire of fear, propaganda, and political manipulation? The American public’s engagement with climate change appears less about understanding the planet’s future and more about navigating a maze of alarmist rhetoric.
In the grand scheme of things, these questions are less about climate science and more about the climate of our national discourse.
The “study” can be found here.
H/T Mumbles McGirk
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What I would ask is why you feel compelled to support Michael Mann, and MBH 98? Aside from the minor little fact his algorithm produces hockey sticks from red noise, tree rings are not a very good measure of just temperature. Sunlight, rain amounts and timing, macro and micro nutrients, insect and other animal grazing, and disease. I am sure I forgot something in that list.
Add in cherry picked data, and why?
I’d guess money.
Bloomberg estimates it will cost $200 trillion to stop warming by 2050.
There are trillions of dollars of profit in that to be made.
I am not greedy. Instead of 10% for the Big Guy, I would be more than satisfied if I only skimmed a mere .01% of that for the Idiot Guy.
Who among us couldn’t make do with a mere $20 billion!
Think bigger! What more could you not do with 100 billion?
Various reasonable estimates of just the backup necessary to give wind and solar, without very extensive FF and nuclear support, any chance of supplying demand, are multiple times more than $200 trillion.
Surely- it’s always that way- any big estimates of any really big projects whether by government or not- always cost many times more than the estimates. Of course attempting to spend that much $$$ will collapse the economy, and THAT will get them what they want- low “carbon pollution”- yet, the floods, droughts, hurricanes, sea rise, forest fires will continue to their amazement! Then what will remain of education will mostly be teaching Mandarin.
That mountain of money is vastly more than the handful of dollars that the ff companies supposedly spend supporting “climate deniers”. This fact is usually ignored of course- when it comes to determining motivations. Like Dr. Jon Robson often jokes- that he needs our support for his YouTube page because the ff companies are failing to send him any checks.
I immoderately thought about three questions I would like to ask and the first touches the proxy topic (there might be different ways to ask these questions, this is just my first shot):
Proxies: As McShane and Wyner identifies proxy selection bias as a significant source of uncertainty in 2010, how can there be any published proxy reconstruction before that not corrected for that or any afterwards not considering that bias in their analysis?
Models: Are the conclusions of R. McKitirck´s “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting: a comment” still unrefuted?Or
Does the significance or the better cloud parameters for the CMIP6 models mean that all older models and their alarmist prognoses were and are systematically and significantly wrong?
Temperature Measurements: (so many questions here), but..
Have the findings of Zou´s “Mid-Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record Derived From Satellite Microwave Sounder Observations With Backward Merging Approach ” at all considered in the alarmists favorite temperature product the UAH series? or
Why are the differences from the different algorithms treating the same data for different global temperature products are not treated as systematic uncertainties in the plots?
Only finding useful for the narrative are relevant. The evidence is overwhelming.
I bet 95% of adult Americans never heard of Mann and MBH 98. Even a majority of well educated people. I live in Wokeachusetts, supposedly with a highly education population. Most people I know have at least 4 years of college. Not one ever heard of Mann and I know this because I raise the climate topic often. They hear about him for the first time from me. If more people heard about Climategate- that would be helpful. We’d like to think everyone knows about this scandal but that’s because we’re talking to others knowledgeable on the topic.
While I would suggest 2000 and the featuring of MBH98 by the IPCC was their outright shift to open advocacy, if not open fraud. Eliminating the Little Ice Age made the argument much more “clear” if one wanted to argue greenhouse gases as a thermostat.
They want you to be afraid. They really don’t care how or why, it is the fear that is important. Because, fear allows them to control the vast majority of the population. There will always be a small minority who are intrinsically resistant to fear based propaganda, and an even smaller set who are knowledgeable enough on the topic in question to see straight through the propaganda, but in almost all cases, roughly 80% of a population can be controlled through fear based propaganda. This has been well known for many years.
Fear is the mind killer.
I would be more concerned about what these idiots are trying to do, than any minor and almost totally natural global temperature change. ( I emphasise the world global, because that discounts local urban and land use changes.)
Net Zero will be the demise of many western countries. That is the aim of this whole charade.
Indeed. It is still amazing the fear during Covid19, some of it even by me, a thoroughly skeptic person. My doubts grew bigger over the whole period. I took the 2 shots but refused the boosters. My doubts were enhanced by the absolute disgraceful behaviour by the Covid alarmists which included family and friends. And the same goes for climate change and the Ukraine conflict. Mass madness, as if intelligent people voluntarily shut off their thinking, logical part of their brain. Goes to show how much is still ruled by basic instincts.
I recall getting into an argument with one of my physicians about closing public parks at the height of the insanity. It made no sense and was counterproductive, but she felt there HAD to be a good reason on the part of the government for doing it.
As a scientist, I find it fascinating to have lived through a world-wide panic. And the neurosis continue to this day. I still see people wearing masks in public and avoiding being near others. I was surprised the other night when a public service ad on TV was run advocating masking, distancing, etc. It was like a bad flashback.
BTW I got the J&J vax because it was closer to a traditional vector vaccine. No second shot, no boosters. And that was the last jab I got. Never caught the ‘Vid.
Covid was the test case to see how far governments could control populations by mandates. Climate is the next phase of it.
Well, some of those still wearing masks are climate protesters and Israel protesters (along with those who just like to riot).
Then there is also the past case of “Are you scientific or just informed on what the CAGW side says”?
List of Yale Study of the Questions.
Ordinary Climate-Science Intelligence Assessment (OCSI)
Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap melted as a result of human-caused global warming, global sea levels would rise.
Climate scientists have concluded that globally averaged surface air temperatures were higher for the first decade of the twenty-first century (2000-2009) than for the last decade of the twentieth century (1990-1999).
Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions.
Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming has increased the number and severity of hurricanes around the world in recent decades.
Climate scientists believe that nuclear power generation contributes to global warming.
Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings.
Climate scientists and economists predict there will be positive as well as negative effects from human-caused global warming.
Climate scientists believe that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with the burning of fossil fuels will reduce photosynthesis by plants.
What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [carbon dioxide, hydrogen, helium, radon]
Notice a pattern here? Are you rated scientifically Intelligent or just know what Climate scientists believe or are predicting.
How about :
1) what is the climate sensitivity (deg C per doubling of CO2) and how certain are we of that number?
2) what would be the cost of prevention vs the cost of adaptation ( in dollars)?
Bloomberg’s green energy research team estimated the cost to stop warming by 2050 at $US200 trillion.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain
There are about 2 billion households in the world so that is about $US100,000 per household.
Estimating that 90 percent of households can’t afford anything means the households in the developed world will have to pay $US1 million each to stop warming.
Almost every family would rather have $US1 million in the bank and a degree or two of warming.
Here in Wokeachusetts we’ve had 1 day over 70 F since October. I’d be happy with no $$$ and about 5 degrees of warming. 🙂
I’m sure that 99% of the adult American population have no clue about ECS. And they have very little appreciation of what the cost will be to arrive at net zero nirvana.
I put no stock in polls. This one was really bad. The knuckledraggers that did it should be demoted and have their salaries reduced.
I was going to list the 13 questions. I assumed if I followed the links I could find all 13. Nope. I only found seven:
“Is there still time to reduce global warming, or is it too late?”
“What can the nations of the world do to reduce global warming?”
“What can the United States do to reduce global warming?”
“How do you know that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, not natural changes in the environment?”
“Is global warming really happening?”
“How do you know that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, not natural changes in the environment?”
“Is global warming a hoax?”
1. This assumes human-caused global warming is real.
2. This assumes human-caused global warming will continue on its own, and that humans can do something that will reduce this warming.
3. This assumes the United States can do something that will reduce warming, and that warming needs to be reduced.
4. This is the question that should be asked of everyone, and is the question that needs to be answered.
5. This is a question I would ask.
6. This is a good question although it assumes humans are causing CO2 warming.
7. Dr. Happer calls Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) a hoax. Trump calls it the “Green New Scam” although I think he is referring more to the profiteering (funneling money to Democrat cronies) going on in the renewables industry, more than he is referring to whether CO2 is a problem or not.
My question to the Yalies is are they aware of the concept of opportunity costs.
What was the total cost for this “study” and can you select one of the following that would have been better use of the funds? – – – a to z below; then start on aa, ab, etc.
a. Access to clean water
…
…
z. Vitamin A deficiency
Apparently they don’t teach logic, or the associated errors, at Yale. Besides mostly biased questions, they are sort of a put down assuming that all people are so dumb that they can’t handle real science. Global warming and climate change are now in the “you know” class of language in a sentence and I seem to recall that there is a category for those. This bias is well established in marine biology as modern studies on the effect of cold are hard to find. Guess that it might be a partly a result of journal “Impact Factors” that can be measured on a computer without much thought.
“Compared with the general U.S. population, the Dismissive (50%) are more likely to ask about the evidence…” Hmm, wonder how they determine dismissive. The common question that I’ve been asked a few times “Do you believe in GW or CC” is an appeal to authority on a implied question where everybody knows that there is warming and change and global and climate. Common problem with polls. Maybe they have only been graded on true-false questions.
I know a ‘marine biologist’ (or whatever associated title he claims to have). He talked about the increasing acidification of the oceans. I asked him about numbers which were not provided. I did a little digging. Turned out it is actually less alkaline content (but i guess ‘acidification’ sounds more alarming) but the nrs were very small. Not only that, he then gave a whole spiel about species not surviving because of this as if those species havent gone through millions of years of variable climatic circumstances and survived. He then added the whole C12 vs C13 thing just to pepper his stance.
It is all weaponized propaganda. When going out of the door he then tried to lecture me about how humans have screwed Earth’s balance. He still is a good friend and i like him. We get on fine and he does accept my pushback. But i wonder what becomes of him and all the others when we reach 2030 and the climate is pretty much the same. Will they repent or just push the new ‘tipping point’ further? The latter is more of a classic mechanism..
The most likely course of events can be gleaned from ‘When Prophecy Fails’, the classic study of a forecast end of the world which failed to materialize.
What happens is that in the approach to the prophesied event the membership becomes more and more extreme, and at the same time the leadership becomes more alarmed at the excesses of the membership, and tries to back off the apocalyptic predictions because they can see the disaster for the movement that will result from their failure.
This is probably happening already in the climate movement – Extinction Rebellion, for instance, and some of the recent pronouncements of caution from some leading academic and activist figures.
Then the prophecy fails, and there is a surprising result: the activists are more convinced and more virulent in their attacks on those in the movement who are now backing off. The first result of a failure of prophecy is not universal loss of belief in the movement. Its strengthening of belief and persecution of heretics and disbelievers, especially those in the movement.
So this is what we will see next. The stages of failure of a project express this descriptively without going into the mechanism:
We are around #2, so there is a ways to go of this saga yet.
I suspect the Panic stage will be triggered by the mass blackouts that will be result in any country seriously persisting in the attempt to move its generation to wind and solar. A failure of the move to EVs is also a possible trigger.
A contemporary example of the phenomenon is what’s happened in the UK on the trans and gender policies. The publication of the Cass report has triggered the panic stage, and they are now full bore into stage 4, the search for the guilty.
Geologists know that the Earth has never been in balance. Most people have no idea of the drastic changes that have taken place on the planet over long time periods.
As one who studied geology (I’m not a Geologist however), I approve this comment.
I managed to get through forestry school without taking a course in geology, though I was supposed to. Years later, after hiking all over the Berkshire hills in western Wokeachusetts, I started to get interested in geology. I purchased all the USGS maps and publications for the region. Then, getting turned on to the subject, I went to the U. Mass. text book store and bought all of the geology text books then read all of them. I also purchased a fantastic book, “Geology Illustrated”. No longer in print. It was by a geologist who had his own small plane and he flew all over the American west (mostly) photographing great geology sites. All black and white- this was back in the ’80s. And it had charts and graphs. It was better at explaining many geology principles than the text books. Now I’m a big fan of several geologists on YouTube- my favorite being Myron Cook at https://www.youtube.com/@myroncook/videos. After working for 50 years as a forester- I wish I had become a geologist instead. Maybe if I reincarnate! I’m particularly interested in paleontology. Few things are more exciting to me than the Museum of Natural History in NYC and the fossils there. I was lucky to get interested in this powerful science just as many fundamentalists were knocking on my door trying to convince me that the world was only a few thousand years old and that Adam and Eve lived with dinosaurs. 🙂
I answered the questions, much better than the hysterical Ivy League lunatics could. Here they are:
“Is global warming really happening?”
Maybe. The satellite temperature record shows small increases in tropospheric temperatures over the last 50 years. But, in the life of the planet, which is so far about 4,500,000,000 years, that is the blink of an eye. And the fluctuations are tiny. On the absolute Kelvin scale, which is the only proper scale for thermodynamic analysis, it is less than 1/3rd of 1%.
“How do you know that global warming is happening?”
repeats previous question.
“Is global warming a hoax?”
Claims that it is a crisis are completely unfounded.
“What causes global warming?”
A combination of factors ranging from cycles of deep ocean currents to the earth’s orbital fluctuations. Perhaps there is some impact due human activites.
“How do you know that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, not natural changes in the environment?”
You don’t.
“What harm will global warming cause?”
A warmer world is a more prosperous, healthier and happier world. There may be some impacts due to weather conditions, but they are easily dealt with.
“Will global warming harm people?”
Repeated question see above.
“When will global warming begin to harm people?”
Never.
“What can the United States do to reduce global warming?”
Not much. Even if human activities are a problem, the US is a small percentage of the world. China now emits more CO2 than the US and Europe combined.
“What can I do to reduce global warming?”
Don’t start forest fires. Other than that almost nothing.
“How much would it cost the United States to reduce global warming?”
Far more than it is worth.
“What can the nations of the world do to reduce global warming?”
They could destroy human life with nuclear weapons. But, that is probably a bad idea.
“Is there still time to reduce global warming, or is it too late?”
It is not too late to understand that there is no crisis and no reason to be upset or worried.
It is too cold to live in most of the US without shelter from the cold. People have to live in heated houses, use heated transportation, work in heated buildings, and have warm clothing and shoes for most of the year.
Genetic engineers ought to get busy fixing our genes so we can grow nice thick fur in the colder months, then shed it in the summer. 🙂 We’ll need it when all ff are taken from us.
I shed enough as it is. I’d move to the Gulf Coast but my family won’t let me.
well, if we had fur, we wouldn’t need clothes- I’d like a tail too, though then, if we still have clothes, we’ll need an opening for the tail 🙂
No comment is required. Harvard beat Yale 29-29 in the classic 1968:football game per the Harvard Crimson newspaper. I was there and we did—coming back 14 points in the last 2 minutes.
Yale has not done a lot since, including on climate.
I had to look it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Yale_vs._Harvard_football_game
“The 1968 Yale vs. Harvard football game was a college football game between the Yale Bulldogs and the Harvard Crimson, played on November 23, 1968. The game ended in a 29–29 tie[1] after Harvard made what is considered a miraculous last-moment comeback, scoring 16 points in the final 42 seconds to tie the game against a highly touted Yale squad.[2] The significance of the moral victory for Harvard inspired the next day’s The Harvard Crimson student newspaper to print the famous headline “Harvard Beats Yale, 29–29″.[3] In 2010, ESPN ranked it No. 9 in its list of the top ten college football ties of all time.”
The string of authors call themselves ‘scientists’ including psychologists social scientists political scientists ‘human geographers’ whatever that is, but does not include one genuine scientist viz. a person who has studied and practiced science ‘the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained’ (Oxford).
A legitimate question: what would these people be doing if it were not for ‘climate change’ and the absurd notion of a ‘climate crisis’?
Working at MacDonalds
How about: waiting for the next ‘pandemic’?
Teaching at Harvard (or Yale)?
If climate change is as dangerous as claimed, why haven’t the negative effects become obvious by now? For all we know, a little warming could be more beneficial to the planet than detrimental. After all these years of failed predictions, it’s becoming obvious that all those predictions of doom and gloom were more a result of guess work and wishful thinking than science. There is no scientific or historical evidence that a little warming is a negative thing. Just the opposite.
With only one day over 70 F since last October, I pray ever day that it warms up- given that my grandparents all came from toasty warm Italy and I’ve worked out doors in the cold New England forests for 50 years. Now in my geezer hood, I crave toasty warm days but can’t afford to travel to such places.
Nor is there any evidence that the current warming will continue forever.
They claim that this or that or Dubai or whatever are the obvious evidence. Any severe weather is climate crisis.
To get any answer you want … you just need to ask the right questions.
https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks
Why do so many climate crisis articles contain ONE OR MORE provable lies in their opening paragraph?
(“..nearly all climate scientists (more than 90%) agree that human-caused global warming is happening.”)
Thanks
JK
Not a lie. FACT.
Please show us the evidence and DO NOT TRY TO CLAIM ANY OF THESE SURVEYS ARE HONEST:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/97percen_%20of_scientists.html
“These findings indicate that it is vital to communicate the five key facts about climate change: scientists agree, it’s real, it’s us, it’s bad, and there’s hope.”
Kind of a nit, but I only count 4 “key facts.”
The fifth is “scientists agree.”
Problem is most of those that agree do not qualify as scientists.
Actually all scientists publishing in reputable scientific journal agree.
“Actually all scientists publishing in reputable scientific journal agree.”
THAT IS A LIE – however it would be accurate “many” scientists published papers …
Of course that is because dissenting papers seldom get published after several editors got fired for dissenting from Al Gore’s climate scam.
For instance:
11 Mar 2003: I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. (1047390562.txt)
15/11/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote: The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have “Climate Research” and “Energy and Environment”, and will go there if necessary. (1132094873.txt)
24 Apr 2003: Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.(1051190249.txt)
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…
From: Tom Wigley, Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009
I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS.
From: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/SelectedEmails.html
It’s Yale. One of the poison Ivys. Nuff said.
I would really like to see an ‘honest’ poll of the public about their thoughts and understanding about climate change. But it’s not in interest of the climate hysteria gang to get honest answers or address public misunderstanding. And the non-hysterical side doesn’t have the money nor resources to conduct such a poll nor publicize it if they could conduct one.
I’d say that the Denier side doesn’t have the skill set, the backing of science, or the credibility to conduct such a poll.
“I’d say that the Denier side doesn’t have the skill set, the backing of science, or the credibility to conduct such a poll.”
Why do you ignore this: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/AMSSurvey.html
(you are starting to appear to be a guy named david.)
Such a convenient list of canned questions, funneling responses into the desired categories. I think many here would have significantly different questions.
People may generally accept the theory that some climate change is due to increased human-induced carbon emissions; however, when they hear the alarmists try to convince us it’s strictly due to human activities, their skepticism levels take a sharp rise. And when they’re reminded that the vast ice sheets that covered much of the northern hemisphere 10-12,000 years ago somehow managed to melt on their own, they’re left with a strong suspicion that the climate experts really can’t put a number on the whole phenomenon, so they conveniently assert that it’s 100% human-induced., As a result, the credibility level drops like a stone, and the majority of the population refuses to make any major lifestyle or operational changes to combat a non-problem.
Science is not consensus. Science is always a challenge to the consensus.