Poll: US belief in global warming is cooling

Oct 23, 2009 By DINA CAPPIELLO , Associated Press Writer
Graphic shows poll results on global warming

(AP) -- Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.

Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.

In a poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, released Thursday, the number of people saying there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades is down from 71 percent in April of last year and from 77 percent when Pew started asking the question in 2006. The number of people who see the situation as a serious problem also has declined.

The steepest drop has occurred during the past year, as Congress and the Obama administration have taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions for the first time and international negotiations for a new treaty to slow have been under way. At the same time, there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change - from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer.

The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the Arctic's thermostat.

Only about a third, or 36 percent of the respondents, feel that human activities - such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles - are behind a temperature increase. That's down from 47 percent from 2006 through last year's poll.

"The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns and a whole host of other issues is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things," suggested Andrew Kohut, the director of the research center, which conducted the poll from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4. "When the focus is on other things, people forget and see these issues as less grave."

Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.

"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.

Political breakdowns in the survey underscore how tough it could be to enact a law limiting pollution emissions blamed for warming. While three-quarters of Democrats believe the evidence of a warming planet is solid, and nearly half believe the problem is serious, far fewer conservative and moderate Democrats see the problem as grave. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans say there is no solid evidence of global warming, up from 31 percent in early 2007.

Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.

Jane Lubchenco, head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a business group meeting at the White House Thursday: "The science is pretty clear that the climate challenge before us is very real. We're already seeing impacts of climate change in our own backyards."

Despite misgivings about the science, half the respondents still say they support limits on greenhouse gases, even if they could lead to higher energy prices. And a majority - 56 percent - feel the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address global .

But many of the supporters of reducing pollution have heard little to nothing about cap-and-trade, the main mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases favored by the White House and central to legislation passed by the House and a bill the Senate will take up next week.

Under cap-and-trade, a price is put on each ton of pollution, and businesses can buy and sell permits to meet emissions limits.

"Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll ... is that the more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who opposes the Senate bill and has questioned global warming science.

Regional as well as political differences were detected in the polling.

People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by Democratic lawmakers from Massachusetts and California.

One of those lawmakers, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, told reporters Thursday that she was happy with the results, given the interests and industry groups fighting the bill.

"Today, to get 57 percent saying that the climate is warming is good, because today everybody is grumpy about everything," Boxer said. "Science will win the day in America. Science always wins the day."

Earlier polls, from different organizations, have not detected a growing skepticism about the science behind global warming.

Since 1997, the percentage of Americans that believe the Earth is heating up has remained constant - at around 80 percent - in polling done by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University. Krosnick, who has been conducting surveys on attitudes about global warming since 1993, was surprised by the Pew results.

He described the decline in the Pew results as "implausible," saying there is nothing that could have caused it.

The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

On the Net:

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press: http://www.people-press.org

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Oil thieves cause pipeline leak, pollute Mexico river

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Gingrich says climate bill will punish Americans

Apr 24, 2009

(AP) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says a Democratic proposal to limit global warming pollution will "punish the American people" with higher energy costs and lost jobs. Gingrich appeared before a ...

EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health

Apr 17, 2009

(AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

Recommended for you

Coal gas boom in China holds climate change risks

2 hours ago

Deep in the hilly grasslands of remote Inner Mongolia, twin smoke stacks rise more than 200 feet into the sky, their steam and sulfur billowing over herds of sheep and cattle. Both day and night, the rumble ...

Water crisis threatens thirsty Sao Paulo

10 hours ago

Sao Paulo is thirsty. A severe drought is hitting Brazil's largest city and thriving economic capital with no end in sight, threatening the municipal water supply to millions of people.

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
2.5 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2009
Interesting that the results of the polls seem to fit the preponderance of pure* scientific, as opposed to politically correct, evidence, i.e. the earth IS still warming (from the little ice age) and; increasing trace gas CO2 has little to do with that overall warming trend.

*based on all of the evidence, NOT evidence cherry picked to fit a political agenda.
AAhhzz
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 23, 2009
How increadibly surprising since "the debate is over" and its "established science" ( though for many it seems a matter that can not be questioned, you know..sort of like Dogma )
Pathetic, one would expect that a scientific issue would ALWAYS BE OPEN to questioning and testing and proof...but not global warming it seems..and to have someone " He described the decline in the Pew results as "implausible," saying there is nothing that could have caused it. "...Maybe people just finally heard a disenting opinion or started questioning what they Had been Told...
brianweymes
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2009
In other news, about 20% of Americans still believe the Sun revolves around the earth.
superhuman
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2009
It's not surprising, during the last 10 years CO2 kept increasing yet average global temperature stayed flat, not a single climate model managed to predict this outcome. Add to this the complexity of climate and constant reports of new unaccounted for effects and climate models certainly don't look very convincing.

To complicate things further from scientific POV it is impossible to determine how much of an impact man made emissions have on global climate. To answer this question we would have to run climate simulations with and without those emissions and compare the outcomes. However for results to be trustworthy those simulations would have to employ trustworthy climate models, which means models whose predictions have been repeatedly shown to be accurate on the timescales on which we plan to use them.

Needless to say it will take decades to verify climate models this way but there is no other way forward. Scientific method derives it's power from experiment and experiment only.
danman5000
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2009
It always surprises me to hear how few people believe this stuff. Look, even if you don't think global warming is an issue what possible reason could you have against legislation to reduce emissions and/or develop greener energy sources? You can't tell me that spewing tons of smoke into the atmosphere is good, and it certainly doesn't look neutral to me (look at the haze over industrial cities - that can't be healthy). Also coal and oil will run out sooner than later, so we need to find new fuel sources anyway. It's best to get those up and running as soon as possible while we still have fossil fuels to fall back on while efficiency is improved. Anyone that dismisses global warming and fights switching to renewable energy sources is either scared of change, a stockholder in the oil companies, or simply ignorant about the long term. The extra costs are worth it.
defunctdiety
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2009
@danman5000
C'mon, get a clue. Despite your perception of absolutes being the only reality, pretty much all people who aren't AGW proponents are all for getting off of fossil fuels. And regarding spewing tons of smoke into the atmosphere, tell me exactly what you know about the present state of industrial emissions controls, I'm very curious. Then I'll tell you what I know from working in emission regulations for the past three+ years (hint, what I know is that all reasonable controls are already in place, and some unreasonable).

The problem with the legislation proposed is that it does absolutely nothing to reduce emissions. They just shuffle carbon from businesses who won't emit it anyway to businesses who MUST, these businesses must pay for this CO2, inducing a new cost onto the consumer as these companies won't just absorb it, guaranteed, and making our government completely unnecessarily larger, which will also cost you again in taxes to pay their wages. Pure economic oppression.
danman5000
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2009
@defunctdiety
Of course I don't think in absolutes, you miss my point. All I'm saying is that there's really no good reason to oppose emissions laws and green energy tech, and that despite what people might believe as far as global warming goes it's still a good idea to develop alternatives. As for what I know I'm no emissions regulator, but when I see millions of cars on the road and numerous coal burning plants dotting the countryside I think that there must be cleaner alternatives. Glad to hear controls are already in place, now let's start making fossil fuels a secondary resource.

I agree that the carbon credit thing isn't going to solve anything, which is again why I say we need to invest in developing sustainable power resources.
NeilFarbstein
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2009
Investments in solar and wind enrgy have increased employment. People who lie there is no proof of the greenhouse effect don't realize that building solar power plants and reducing coal use will make the economy grow.
ricarguy
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2009
Yes a few new jobs which are artificially propped up by fear, political arm twisting, and just trying to look good. Carbon tax/cap & trade, whatever is a drain on the economy. Why? Cuz if energy costs more and we pay more in taxes on top of that, we have less to spend on everything else. That = lower standard of living.

OK to get off petroleum, coal, whatever, but what happens when you can't afford it? Wind is more expensive than traditional power generation and solar is worse. Keep developing the technology but don't go in too deep until it's closer. We are already in an untenable financial position going forward.

No one wants us to reach the day when for the first time since the dark ages, our children won't be better off than we are economically. But I fear that day has come and the other shoe (from gov't over-spending) hasn't hit the floor yet.
defunctdiety
1.3 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2009
Who claims there is no green house effect?! AGW misrepresents the facts (AGW lies) by representing just one side. Here you provide a shining example of AGW proponents completely missing the point of the argument against AGW.

I don't think any scientist or educated person would say there is no such thing as the green house effect or even that CO2 does not have some net warming effect on the planet. The whole point is, that there is too much uncertainty in the whole thing, 1.) that we have anything to do with the OVERALL CHANGE or 2.) that we can do any "good" in trying to "combat" a changing climate, it's ridiculous. What WILL NOT grow the economy, GUARANTEED, are crippling carbon taxes and a SWELLING GOVERNMENT.

There are actual problems that can be faced directly that would at the same time eliminate any possible AGW. WE DON'T NEED AGW to justify CONSERVATION and getting off of fossil fuels.

Free your mind. Think outside the box that mainstream media has locked your brain away in.
bhiestand
3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2009
It's quite fun to hear people who watch "America's #1 News Source" drone on about evil mainstream media...

To begin with, defuncdiety, your side claims that there is no greenhouse gas effect. Or rather, they claim that increased CO2 is really, really good for plants and it'll make the planet into some sort of utopia. They also publish blatant lies, skirt the issue whenever real facts are brought up to contradict them, and do pretty much everything that flies in the face of science.

"AGW skeptics" are anything but. You've already stated that your starting position is that it's "ridiculous" that we could affect the global climate. I understand that you may be incapable of seeing your biases on this issue, but it's painfully obvious that your position is that of frontierism--"there's no way we could possibly negatively affect the global environment, so we can do whatever we want."
bhiestand
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2009
Although I should say that I agree with you... there are good arguments for going to a zero emissions economy as soon as possible regardless of climate change. Climate change just makes the consequences rather harsh if we fail to make the right move in time.
peteone1
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2009

You ask: "what possible reason could you have against legislation to reduce emissions and/or develop greener energy sources?"
Well superficially no one in their right mind would be against a *greener planet* if that is what we were really talking about. What is actually being pushed by the Al-Gore global-warming alarmists in this entire man-made global warming farce is an attempt by anti-capitalist leftwing socialists embedded with the infrastructures of government, academia, and the secular left-leaning news media is to try to eliminate the one very economic system that has brought virtually unlimited prosperity to the US and the Western world, that is capitalism.

peteone1
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2009
The scientific debate over anthropomorphic global warming is FAR from over as a substantial number of earth, life, & physical scientists reject the idea on scientific grounds...
"The National Press Club in Washington...release(d) the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself."
http://www.americ...to.html#

Noein
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2009
Given the endless lies, deceit, and obfuscation propagated by the religious fanatics of big oil's Church of Global Warming Denialism, and given the profound scientific illiteracy of the American people and their legendary credulity, not to mention their high regard for greed and shallow materialism, it comes as no surprise at all that big oil's campaign of ignorance and fear has caused more Americans to reject the real world and embrace the childish fairy tales and make believe of global warming denial.
peteone1
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2009
And to go over some relevant scientific facts, is ca rbon dioxide (CO2) really the big and bad threat that it's made out to be by the global warming alarmists? Not when one considers that CO2 is only about 0.0383% (383 ppmv) of the entire content of our air (atmosphere) that we breathe. http://en.wikiped...position

And considering the fact that plants breathe CO2 as we humans & animals breath oxygen (O2) and that the web of life on earth depends on having healthy plants, which would be healthier if they had more CO2 to breathe, would us humans actually increasing our "carbon footprints" be such a bad idea?
bhiestand
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2009
And to go over some relevant scientific facts, is ca rbon dioxide (CO2) really the big and bad threat that it's made out to be by the global warming alarmists?

Yes. That's what all of these studies you've been dismissing have been showing to very high probabilities.

Not when one considers that CO2 is only about 0.0383% (383 ppmv) of the entire content of our air (atmosphere) that we breathe.

Ahh, the old argument from incredulity. "ppm! That's such a small number we could hardly measure it. Hell, just a few hundred ppm DET/mercury/lead/___ can't possibly hurt anything!" Think 380 ppm is a small dose? Try eating some fish that has 380ppm mercury. Do you realize that 2.0 ppm SO2 is highly polluted... do you remember the same arguments about acid rain?

Thanks for bringing up the "CO2 Is Green" argument, though. Rather proves my point that people really believe that FUD.
bhiestand
3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2009
The scientific debate over anthropomorphic global warming is FAR from over as a substantial number of earth, life, & physical scientists reject the idea on scientific grounds...
"The National Press Club in Washington...release(d) the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself."
http://www.americ...to.html#

Your comment, and that article, is so factually wrong that it doesn't even warrant a serious response. To begin with, it wasn't "32,000 scientists", it was 32,000 people with a bachelor's degree or higher, names and credentials which haven't been properly verified. Very few of them actually had degrees in REAL sciences, and very few of those had degrees in related fields.

You'll find quite a few MDs in that list, though. Wouldn't be surprised to find some PhDs in theology...
peteone1
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2009
"Given the endless lies, deceit, and obfuscation propagated by the religious fanatics of big oil's Church of Global Warming Denialism"
If that isn't the totally fact-free vacuous rhetoric of Leftist anti-capitalist global warming alarmist nothing is.

Dude, capitalism and "big oil" are the very things that drive the economy and the engine of freedom that has kept this nation as the bastion of freedom and democracy that it still is. FYI, what primarily causes planetary warming and cooling is most definitely not man's activities but more likely related to nature itself and to solar events and less atributable to human activity...
http://www.onemin...warming/

The entire belief that humans cause global climate change is based more on a leftwing anti-capitalist political agenda than any science.
ronpierre
3 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2009
Not Surprising that the poll is conducted by an organisation established by the adult children of an oil company, sun oil. I would like to see the questions that were asked to come to the result they wanted.
peteone1
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2009
"Your comment, and that article, is so factually wrong that it doesn't even warrant a serious response. To begin with, it wasn't "32,000 scientists", it was 32,000 people with a bachelor's degree or higher, names and credentials which haven't been properly verified"
OH REALLY? So tell us please, how many PhD level scientists deny the scientific facts and have swallowed the non-scientist Al Gore lies of manmade global warming, just so they can be popular with the Leftwing anti-capitalist news media?!

"The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."
http://www.petiti...ners.php

Ok...so a list of scientists from varying interrelated principles won't suffice? Most of those with BScs (like me) or others with MScs and PhDs mentioned have sufficient science training to understand what's going on...
bhiestand
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2009
So tell us please, how many PhD level scientists deny the scientific facts and have swallowed the non-scientist Al Gore lies of manmade global warming, just so they can be popular with the Leftwing anti-capitalist news media?!

It's sad that you don't realize how many errors and bogus claims are in that one convoluted sentence. Sorry, but there is no giant hippy commune involving all the major news media outlets. They're all large multinational corporations who exist to make a profit.

Ok...so a list of scientists from varying interrelated principles won't suffice?

Not if they have no knowledge on the subject matter, no, they won't at all.

Most of those with BScs (like me) or others with MScs and PhDs mentioned have sufficient science training to understand what's going on...

Sorry, but a mechanical engineer or an MD does NOT have sufficient training to understand the situation. I see 39 "climatologists" signed it, but no indications of their qualifications.
bhiestand
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2009
I should expand on that and say that the petition project doesn't say how many in each category have BS, MS, or PhDs. Assuming the ratios are the same as the overall ratios, that would mean 11.2 PhD, 8.8 MS, 3.2 MD, and 15.7 BS. The MDs and BSces can be dismissed outright because they're not working at the research level or have switched fields and can not expected to be current. That means they found just under 20 climatologists to go on the record against GW over the last 10 years... doesn't that number seem a bit small to you?

Many of the disciplines certainly CAN be interrelated to climate modeling, but that requires a degree of specialization that few in those fields have. Statisticians, for example, can not properly evaluate climate models without a thorough study of climatology AND a team of experts from related fields to cross-check the various premises in the models.
Snowhare
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2009
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

Ok...so a list of scientists from varying interrelated principles won't suffice? Most of those with BScs (like me) or others with MScs and PhDs mentioned have sufficient science training to understand what's going on...


Of the list, only _39_ claimed degrees in Climatology, by the projects own numbers. Additionally the Oregon Petition completely failed to be a scientific survey because:

1) It only accepts one answer. You can't write to them and say you _DO_ accept AGW. You can only say you _DON'T_.

2) They actively *misled* respondents by including a 12 page letter deceptively appearing to be a review of AGW from the National Academy of Sciences doubting AGW.

(continued)
Snowhare
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2009
3) Scientific American did a survey in 2001 of a random sample of the 1400 people claiming to have climate related degrees. Of the 30 people they tried to contact, only 26 could be identified, 11 said they still agreed with the (only 1 of which was an active climate researcher), three didn't remember any such petition, six had changed their minds, one had died, five refused to respond to repeated queries. And that was eight years ago - only 3 years after the petition was circulated in,

4) The petition dates back to _1998_. That means it predates both IPCC4 (2007) _and_ IPCC3 (2001). Nothing like a _10 year old_ petition to try and cast doubt on AWG.

For a nice overview of the history of the Oregon Petition and why it is a piece of garbage see http://en.wikiped...Petition

(continued)
Snowhare
3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2009
For an actual scientific *SURVEY* of Earth scientists from this year, see http://tigger.uic...inal.pdf

The take home from it:

_90%_ of _ALL_ respondents to the survey said global warming is real and _82%_ said man was behind it.

Specifically of the actively publishing *Climatologists*, _98%_ of those surveyed said global warming is real and _96%_ said that man is behind it.

That is not just consensus, that is damn near unanimity.
Mavin
Oct 24, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Snowhare
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2009
It's not surprising, during the last 10 years CO2 kept increasing yet average global temperature stayed flat, not a single climate model managed to predict this outcome.


This myth keeps circulating. Here is a 10 year running average for global temperatures: http://tamino.fil...mp;h=362

As you can clearly see - warming hasn't 'stayed flat'.
superhuman
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2009
It's not surprising, during the last 10 years CO2 kept increasing yet average global temperature stayed flat
This myth keeps circulating. Here is a 10 year running average for global temperatures: http://tamino.fil...mp;h=362
As you can clearly see - warming hasn't 'stayed flat'.

It's not a myth, you are confusing ten year average with ten year record, look at ten last points here:
http://en.wikiped...cord.png

If you attempt to fit a trend for the last 100 years you end up with a paltry 0.8 deg warming per century. Even if you want to base your prediction on last 20 years you end up with less then 0.4deg/20 years which means less then 1.8 deg warmer planet in 2100.

All the catastrophic predictions we hear all the time that foretell 4-8 deg warming by the end of the century require the graph to shoot upwards at a much higher rate then it actually does, so there certainly is room for skepticism.
peteone1
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2009
((only _39_ claimed degrees in Climatology, by the projects own numbers. Additionally the Oregon Petition completely failed to be a scientific survey))
Really? You might want to take a gander at this then...

"Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment."
http://www.petiti...ners.php

((It only accepts one answer.))
Ok. so what?! So do the Al-Gore GW alarmists, they won't take a resounding NO for an answer as the scientific data bites them in the rear end! There is NO conclusive data proving man's industrial CO2 output does anything to warm the climate. You did know that plants breathe in any excess amounts of CO2 I trust? That CO2 is good for plants (they breathe it in and conduct metabolic processes with it) and therefore for humans and animals? And that even CO2 were a threat....
peteone1
2 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2009
...it's only 383 ppmv (0.0383%)
http://en.wikiped...position

Heck CO2 is not even the primary greenhouse gas...that honor belongs to water vapor!!

((They actively *misled* respondents by including a 12 page letter deceptively appearing to be a review of AGW from the National Academy of Sciences doubting AGW))
No dude, the data doesn't lie, only Al Gore & his anti-capitalist Leftwing alarmist disciples do!
Snowhare
3.7 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2009
This myth keeps circulating. Here is a 10 year running average for global temperatures: http://tamino.fil...mp;h=362


It's not a myth, you are confusing ten year average with ten year record, look at ten last points here:
http://en.wikiped...cord.png

[...]


Here is the global mean temps plot with a linear regression line for the last 10 years: http://snowhare.c...sion.png

And just in case someone whines that it doesn't include 1998, here is an 11 year plot including 1998 in the trend: http://snowhare.c...sion.png

In both plots, the the trend line is still _UP_.

Snowhare
3 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2009
((only _39_ claimed degrees in Climatology, by the projects own numbers. Additionally the Oregon Petition completely failed to be a scientific survey))
Really? You might want to take a gander at this then...


Let's say you did a survey of around 3000 non-specialist medical doctors asking for a diagnosis about a lump you noticed, and 82% of them gave you a specific cancer diagnosis requiring expensive treatment to save your life, and then additionally surveyed 77 _oncologists_ and 96% of the oncologists gave you the same specific cancer diagnosis.

If you then decided that you would go with a petition signed by 30000 non-doctors and the 18% of doctors and the 4% of oncologists who deny that that kind of cancer even exists and skip the expensive treatment for cancer you would be rightly called a fool.

And most likely, not too much later, a _dead_ fool.
Mavin
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2009
There is Global Warming, it happens every 100,000 years and then we have Global Cooling. The question is, does CO2 have anything to do with it? It never has in the past.
otto1923
2 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2009
Don't care whether global warming is real or not. WE NEED THE TECHNOLOGY. You crisis-driven simians you.
peteone1
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2009
{{Global Warming, it happens every 100,000 years and then we have Global Cooling. The question is, does CO2 have anything to do with it?}}

Um, I'm not so sure that CO2 can cause that since plants as any of us who have had high school or college biology know, that plants use CO2 like we do oxygen. And since CO2 is such a small sliver of the total composition of the atmosphere (0383%), not to mention the highly unknown state of long term atmpsoheric dynamics, it's highly unlikely that that could ever happen.

What I believe we have instead is a well organized and quite zealous group of Leftist anti-capitalist reactionaries who wish to destroy the very economic engine that helps fund their quest for pushing this agenda-driven pseudoscience down our throats.

Those of us who cherish liberty and the free market system must realize these facts and that it isn;t all about saving the planet, it's all about defeating a radical communistic political agenda that seeks to enslave us.
peteone1
1.3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2009
{{Let's say you did a survey of around 3000 non-specialist medical doctors asking for a diagnosis...you then decided that you would go with a petition signed by 30000 non-doctors and the 18% of doctors and the 4% of oncologists who deny that that kind of cancer even exists and skip the expensive treatment for cancer you would be rightly called a fool}}
BAD analogy, apples & oranges...cancer, a non manmade disease exists, manmade global warming doesn't! ;-)
brianweymes
2 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2009
Guess what guys, I can make science too.

According to my latest calculations the Sun would have to be about 5387% larger for it to have sufficient gravity to keep the Earth in its orbit. In fact, the late Klaus J. Cutlieker determined that the Sun fills only 2.0395% of the sky, and that's when it passes over the equator! Since the sun is logically at its largest over the equator, and it had historically been assumed that it would be much larger than 2% when Copernicus originally measured it from Europe, this blows Copernican theory out of the water. It must be at least 20%, that's 18% too little! Dan Brown http://www.amazon...43486226 talks about how all the European scientists are apart of the Illuminati and this is their master plan to make the world into a united socialist concentration camp by worshiping the Sun.

Also, I worked as a physicist for 4 years at a small mid-western university. I also am a vegetarian. Believe me.
superhuman
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2009
It's not a myth, you are confusing ten year average with ten year record, look at ten last points here:
http://en.wikiped...cord.png

In both plots, the the trend line is still _UP_.

Yes, but comparing to previous decades it is roughly flat. Assuming your calculation is right the trend is just 0.06 degree C per 11 years. If it were to stay that way the Earth would be just a bit less then half degree warmer in 2100 - perfectly acceptable to every rational person. And this value is based on 11 years that saw the highest concentration of CO2.
superhuman
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2009
Sorry for the mess above, apparently editing a comment with nested quotes and a link no longer works, here is correct version:
It's not a myth, you are confusing ten year average with ten year record, look at ten last points here:[...]

Here is the global mean temps plot with a linear regression line for the last 10 years:
...
In both plots, the the trend line is still _UP_.

Yes, but comparing to previous decades it is roughly flat. Assuming your calculation is right the trend is just 0.06 degree C per 11 years. If it were to stay that way the Earth would be just a bit less then half degree warmer in 2100 - perfectly acceptable to every rational person. And this value is based on 11 years that saw the highest concentration of CO2.
Snowhare
4 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2009
Yes, but comparing to previous decades it is roughly flat. Assuming your calculation is right the trend is just 0.06 degree C per 11 years. If it were to stay that way the Earth would be just a bit less then half degree warmer in 2100 - perfectly acceptable to every rational person. And this value is based on 11 years that saw the highest concentration of CO2.


You are basing that slope on the 11 year trend. The slope of the 10 year trend is 0.0117/year.

When regression slopes varies that much with the addition or deletion of _one_ data point, they are telling you that your trend line is being generated over too small a time period: You are looking at the noise instead of the signal.

As you expand the window of time for the trend line it starts converging and quits wiggling hugely with the addition or omission of only a year or two.

(continued)
Snowhare
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2009
Here is a chart showing the temperature trends (linear regression) for various windows ranging from 10 to 75 years.

http://snowhare.c...ends.png

The 10 year line is *very* jagged - indicating it is too sensitive to annual variations to use for trends. The 15 year line is much smoother but still fairly sensitive to annual variations. The 20 year trend line is becoming quite insensitive to annual variations. This pattern of 'smoothing out' the annual noise superimposed on the long term signal continues as you go to 20, 30, 40 and 75 year windows.

But the most important thing to take away from the chart is that it shows that not only has it been warming overall for the last hundred years, the *rate* of warming has been increasing overall for at least the last 30 years or so.

It is not only getting warmer, it is getting warmer *faster*.
defunctdiety
3.3 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2009
it's painfully obvious that your position is that of frontierism-

Nice shot in the dark but you missed. Unfortunately for your argument, bhiestand, I'm an actual conservationist and environmentalist. I've made actual changes to my life towards consuming less everyday, less fossil fuels, less energy, and towards creating less waste; as opposed to what the AGW movement would have us do. Which is of course just slightly change our spending habits and finance their growing government.

If I have any bias it is to believe AGW. I used to be an AGW proponent. Then I realized how tremendously much more there is to it. How much more is just glossed over by AGW. People should believe whatever they feel the facts support, but in no circumstance should we let a belief, in the absence of so many facts, justify the coming economically oppressive policies propped up by wholly incomplete science.

Sorry I don't fit nicely into your perception of black and white. Care to speak for yourself now?
bhiestand
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2009
Sorry, it was unfair for me to call you a frontierist directly. You're simply lending support to them and actively ignoring their ridiculous arguments.

People should believe whatever they feel the facts support, but in no circumstance should we let a belief, in the absence of so many facts, justify the coming economically oppressive policies propped up by wholly incomplete science.

... and that sounds just like the ID drivel we hear whenever evolution comes up. And it's a character attack on all the scientists who work so hard to actually arrive at the truth. "Not only are they intentionally ignoring important facts which I won't name, but they're doing it because they want to enact their evil anti-capitalist agenda!"

You still fit pretty nicely into my perception of AGW Denier. You seem to have interwoven the science behind AGW with the American politicians behind the carbon bill. Every time you start to argue against AGW, you bring up politics. Science != politics
peteone1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2009
((You're simply lending support to them (those of us who deny the lie of man made GW) and actively ignoring their ridiculous arguments))
First of all there is nothing more ridiculous than believing that CO2 in any form can cause the planet to warm enough to cause the polar caps to melt and sealevels to rise to the point of swallowing the US all the way to Kansas. As I've previously shown from scientific data, CO2 which is only .0383% of the atm we breathe is the "stuff" that plants inhale. Ergo, the larger carbon "footprint" we make the healthier plants will be and the ensuing benefit would be the healthier we would be as people.

((that sounds just like the ID drivel we hear whenever evolution comes up. And it's a character attack on all the scientists who work so hard to actually arrive at the truth.))
Um, the belief that evolution could have taken place without an Intelligent Designer setting the initial parameters within matter & energy is a far better hypothesis than materialism..
peteone1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2009
...which by default is NOT science but a philosophical/metaphysical belief system in itself no different than the assumption of an Intelligent Designer jump-starting evolution. Leftwing God-hating secular fundamentalists who love all things socialistic are the ones who have the intellectual dyslexia are the ones who usually embrace such pseudoscientific nonsense as man-made GW and form the mind-numbed ranks of the GW Alarmists. Your quote about "attacking scientists" who work at arriving at truth is nothing but a strawman. I personally know several geoscience people, including Ph.D. meteorologists, who laugh at the those who can with a straight face claim that man's activities are actually to blame for a significant warming of the planet and what "dire consequences" we might face in a decade or two. They tell me we can't even predict with certainty what the weather will be like past 5 days in the future, even with our advanced computer modeling!
peteone1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2009
So how can that non-scientist moron Al-Gore and his reactionary GW disciples hope to know what man-made industrial activities including the widespread usage of fossil fuels to run our FREE MARKET-based civilization will supposedly do to the detriment of the planet in 10, 20, or 100 years?! The obvious answer is that Reactionary GW Fanatics have no clue! It's just all part of a larger socio-political agenda, namely their anti-capitalist agenda, an effort to "try communism again".

There's nothing inherently "evil" about supporting capitalism or the very life blood that sustains it...fossil fuels! The only thing that I and many others are seeing is the systematic dismantling of our energy-producing capacity by anti-capitalist Leftwing fanatics with a socio-political ax to grind. And that proverbial ax is what they intend to use as they try mangle our energy-producing infrastructure with the lie that "big oil" in the U.S. is evil, while excusing the scum in the mid-east who hate our guts
defunctdiety
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2009
You seem to have interwoven the science behind AGW with the American politicians behind the carbon bill.

This is the whole problem. The two have become inextricably linked. It's not about the science anymore, it hasn't been for a long time. It's now entirely about the new religion, it's now entirely political, the new opiate of the masses for the gov't to use in justifying more and more growth and control.

There is absolutely no academic or scientific honesty in the mainstream AGW movement. It's all one side of the story, even an AGW proponent can't deny this if they are at all still capable of being honest with themself. It's all been twisted into political posturing, geared towards personal and political gain, this is evident in the resulting policies being proposed.

Take several steps back and think about the REALITY of it all. About the TREMENDOUS NATURAL VARIABILITY of the earth's climate without man, about the HUGE POLITICAL GAIN resulting from this new religion. THINK!!
defunctdiety
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2009
Explain to me the environmental good that will come from the political AGW movement, and how the AGW movement is necessary to attaining this good.

You can't. Nothing will result from AGW politics that will actually be good for the environment, cap and trade, carbon taxing, no environmental good, just costs US money. We don't need AGW to justify going to renewable energies. The only MEASURABLE result will be economic oppression.

Of course, AGW has the supreme position. The climate gets cooler, they can say "oh look at the good we've done, let's keep doing it", when what we've done won't make a lick of difference in any overall change, it gets hotter, "oh we need to do more", and here comes greater economic oppression. It's all such BS, and you've bought it hook, line and sinker.

We cannot control the climate, the climate always has and always will do what it will do. We can only adapt. That's what we should be doing (adapting), but instead we're fighting this straw-man enemy, CO2.
peteone1
Oct 29, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gammakozy
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2009
The reasons given for the drop are laughable.

"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, ..."
Examples please.

"... people mixing up weather and climate "
Oh, so it is stupid people not bad science.

" ... and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public,"
What a joke. Full-court press? How big is the court?

Maybe its that the general public is not as stupid and gullible as the group-think pseudo-scientists and left-wing politicians think they are. Face it, the Big Hoax is failing.
Snowhare
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2009
Maybe its that the general public is not as stupid and gullible as the group-think pseudo-scientists and left-wing politicians think they are. Face it, the Big Hoax is failing.


And just how long *is* the emperor's nose?

Scientific questions are not settled by polls of the general public.

Only *21%* of the general public can successfully answer all three of these questions correctly:

1) How long does it take for the Earth to revolve around the Sun? (Correct answer: 1 year)

2) Did the earliest humans and dinosaurs live at the same time? (Correct answer: No)

3) Roughly how much of the Earth's surface is covered with water. (Correct answer: 65%-75%)

http://www.calaca...racy.php

Excuse me if I am not overly impressed with the "average man's" grasp of science.

If they don't know the *basic* stuff, they sure aren't qualified to judge the complicated stuff.
peteone1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2009
{{Scientific questions are not settled by polls of the general public.))
In a perfect world of course, science should be settled by the precise as possible interpretation of the available data. That interpretation should be derived in an objective manner free from any agenda-driven political passions. In the case of supposed global warming this is not the case since all of the Al-Gore GW Alarmists have an anti-capitalist, leftwing political agenda that they wish to impose on the rest of us. They do this by pushing the junk science that CO2 can somehow cause the planet to heat up into a cauldron in 'x' number of years when any meteorologist worth their degree will tell you that any weather prediction (even with advanced computer modeling) past 5 days is PFM (Pure Freaking Magic)!

{{Only *21%* of the general public can successfully answer all three of these questions correctly:}}
This is nothing but a strawman. What the public thinks about other scientific issues has no bearing on this.
peteone1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2009
What we know about GW is that man's activities are NOT causing the cyclic warming of the planet. Furthermore a warmer planet is better than a colder one in that the warmer the planet, the more life and civilization will flourish as opposed to some colder period akin to a mini ice age. The more CO2 is present in the atm, the more plants will thrive and thus the more animals and humans will thrive. It all "hangs in the balance" as it were. ;-)

{{Excuse me if I am not overly impressed with the "average man's" grasp of science}}
Funny you should say that since Al Gore, the Alarmist GW Fanatic's guru is a NON-SCIENTIST, therefore, an *average man* as you say.

{{If they don't know the *basic* stuff, they sure aren't qualified to judge the complicated stuff.}}
By your own criteria, so is Al Gore. ;-)
bhiestand
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2009
Unfortunately, it appears the GW Deniers are willing to believe nearly anything. You are constantly repeating previously disproven claims and then bringing in new, completely unfounded assertions into the mix. I have never, not once, read a scientific paper that based its conclusions on the words of Al Gore.

Nobody except for your side is claiming that Al Gore has anything to do with climatology. Nobody except for your side is taking an ideological involving capitalism.

Further, your claims that "More CO2 is good!" and "Warmer planet would be great" absolutely solidify the previous statement that the public has no clue with regards to science.

The more CO2 is present in the atm, the more plants will thrive and thus the more animals and humans will thrive. It all "hangs in the balance" as it were. ;-)

Did you seriously just revive the homeostasis argument?
bhiestand
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2009
What it all comes down to, though, is the fact that there is nothing any scientist can say to change your mind. "Anyone who believes anthropogenic AGW to be true MUST be an evil anti-capitalist, further, they're wrong, because warming would be great!"... and you call US ideological?
peteone1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2009
{{Nobody except for your side is claiming that Al Gore has anything to do with climatology.}}
I didn't say that *Professor* Gore had anything to do with climatology, he does so by his own extraneous & quite misguided efforts in trying to make people believe that man (mainly capitalism) has anything significantly to do with "warming the planet". Gore and most other Leftwing GW Alarmists know absolutely nothing about what makes the planet warm or cold in lieu of making up crap and trying to sell this anti-capitalist snake oil to the public. Real science interpreted by real climatologists, meteorologists, and geoscientists clearly shows that not only isn't there a real correlation between human industrial activity and global warming, but that CO2 plays almost no significant part in how the planet's temp behaves over time. Other natural causes have a far greater impact on planetary temp cycles...solar maximum/minimum, volcanic eruptions, El-Nino, etc.
Snowhare
2.5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2009
Real science interpreted by real climatologists, meteorologists, and geoscientists clearly shows that not only isn't there a real correlation between human industrial activity and global warming, but that CO2 plays almost no significant part in how the planet's temp behaves over time.


82% of geoscientists contradict you. As do *96%* of climatologists.

Are you claiming that only _4%_ of climatologists are 'real climatologists' doing 'real science'?

As for the meteorologists, they appear be to be making the same error you just made of conflating weather with climate. They work with weather every day. They don't work with climate much except as 'background' to their weather.

Climate is not weather.

Climate is the *average pattern* of weather over large areas and over long times.

It is closer to saying 'it will be warm this summer and cold this winter in the the desert southwest' than to saying 'it will rain on next Tuesday in Phoenix'.
peteone1
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2009
((82% of geoscientists contradict you))
That would be 82% of scientists in general according to Peter Doran (associate professor of earth and environmental sciences @ University of Illinois at Chicago) in a paper published in Nature(31 January 2002). But that figure was broken down a bit...
"climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement"

http://www.scienc...0532.htm

However if you will note that this *majority* of climatologists believes that humans had A role in the global increase of temps, not THE cause. There's a huge diffie in the two! There is absolutely zero evidence that man's CO2 emissions cause global warming...
peteone1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2009
"...there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming."
http://www.friend...php?id=3

And the people who brought you that website's qualifications...
"Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties"
http://www.friend...php?id=1

And even if a majority of earth scientists thought that humans were to blame for GW, it wouldn't make it so by default via majority opinion. A majority of scientists..
peteone1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2009
...have been known to be dead wrong! A "majority" of scientists once thought that the earth was the center of the universe.
"Although the basic tenets of Greek geocentrism were established by the time of Aristotle, the details of his system did not become standard. This honor was reserved for the Ptolemaic system, espoused by the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus in the 2nd century AD...it was accepted for over a millennium as the correct cosmological model by European and Islamic astronomers."
http://en.wikiped..._systems

HINT: Copernicus & Galileo proved them wrong!

in like manner, science tells us something about so-called anthropogenic climate change. CO2, which is only about .033% of the entire atm of the earth. That's not even 4/100 of 1% of what we breathe! What's more, plants breathe it and love it, and the healthier the plants, the healthier the planet! ;-)

peteone1
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2009
((Are you claiming that only _4%_ of climatologists are 'real scientists'))
Not at all, however your statement & the article in question NEVER mentioned that the scientists in question believed that AGW was the *sole* or even *major* cause for global climate change. The truth is that many factors, the vast majority if not all of them being purely natural & not manmade being the culprit!

((As for the meteorologists, they appear be to be making the same error you just made of conflating weather with climate.))
Um, let me see if I get this straight, meteorologists (many with Ph.D.s) are wrong about AGW, and non-scientist liar Al-Gore isn't?! What's wrong with this picture?! Oh, I see...the Leftist Anti-Capitalist agenda isn't being adhered to by meteorologists who don't agree with Al Gore & his more radical neo-communist lemmings in the environmentalist movement.

((Climate is not weather))
Yes it is, integrated weather patterns over time.
peteone1
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2009
((Climate is the *average pattern* of weather over large areas and over long times.))
Ok, so we can all agree that over deep-time there have been episodic changes in climate as the geologic record shows. So then were the increases in temps in the Jurassic due to the dinosaurs burning too many fossil fuels?

((It is closer to saying 'it will be warm this summer and cold this winter in the the desert southwest' than to saying 'it will rain on next Tuesday in Phoenix'.))
Absolutely! And in like manner it's absolutely absurd it extrapolate years into the future and pretend to *know* that human-induced CO2 emissions will warm the planet so significantly as to make Kansas beachfront property when we can't even with an unshakable confidence predict what the weather will do in 5 days even with our best computer models!

Something to think about! ;-)