Large majority of Americans still believe in global warming, Stanford poll finds

Jun 09, 2010

Three out of four Americans believe that the Earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it, according to a new survey by researchers at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.

The survey was conducted by Woods Institute Senior Fellow Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and of at Stanford, with funding from the National Science Foundation. The results are based on telephone interviews conducted from June 1-7 with 1,000 randomly selected American adults.

"Several national surveys released during the last eight months have been interpreted as showing that fewer and fewer Americans believe that climate change is real, human-caused and threatening to people," Krosnick said. "But our new survey shows just the opposite."

For example, when respondents in the June 2010 survey were asked if the Earth's temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74 percent said yes. And 75 percent said that was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred. Krosnick has asked similar questions in previous Woods Institute polls since 2006.

"Our surveys reveal a small decline in the proportion of people who believe has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today," Krosnick said. "Statistical analysis of our data revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate scientists."

In terms of average Earth temperature, 2008 was the coldest year since 2000, Krosnick said. "Scientists say that such year-to-year fluctuations are uninformative, and people who trust scientists therefore ignore this information when forming opinions about global warming's existence," he added. "But people who do not trust climate scientists base their conclusions on their personal observations of nature. These 'low-trust' individuals were especially aware of the recent decline in average world temperatures; they were the ones in our survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007."

According to Krosnick, this explanation is especially significant, because it suggests that the recent decline in the proportion of people who believe in global warming is likely to be temporary. "If the Earth's temperature begins to rise again, these individuals may reverse course and rejoin the large majority who still think warming is real," he said.

'Climategate'

Several questions in the June survey addressed the so-called "climategate" controversy, which made headlines in late 2009 and early 2010.

"Growing public skepticism has, in recent months, been attributed to news reports about e-mail messages hacked from the computer system at the University of East Anglia in Britain - characterized as showing climate scientists colluding to silence unconvinced colleagues - and by the discoveries of alleged flaws in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on (IPPC)," Krosnick said. "Our survey discredited this claim in multiple ways. "

For example, only 9 percent of respondents said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and believed they indicate that climate scientists should not be trusted, and only 13 percent said the same about the controversial IPPC reports.

"Overall, we found no decline in Americans' trust in environmental scientists," Krosnick said. "Fully 71 percent of respondents said they trust scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely."

Government solutions

In the June 2010 survey, 86 percent of respondents said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent favored government limitations on greenhouse gas emissions generated by businesses. Only 14 percent said that the United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other major industrial countries like China and India do so as well.

Among other results:

  • 78 percent opposed taxes on electricity to reduce consumption, and 72 percent opposed taxes on gasoline;
  • 84 percent favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make more electricity from water, wind and solar power;
  • Four out of 5 respondents favored government requiring or offering tax breaks to encourage the production of cars that use less gas (81 percent), appliances that use less electricity (80 percent) and homes and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool (80 percent);
  • Only 18 percent said that policies to reduce global warming would increase unemployment.

Explore further: Bacteria ate some toxins, but worst remain, according to Gulf oil spill researcher

More information: For additional information on Krosnick's research, visit: woods.stanford.edu/research/surveys.html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Survey: Environmental pessimism abounds

Apr 04, 2006

A Stanford University survey suggests most Americans are pessimistic about the state of the environment and want action taken to improve it.

American opinion cools on global warming

Jan 27, 2010

Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

Recommended for you

Selective logging takes its toll on mammals, amphibians

17 hours ago

The selective logging of trees in otherwise intact tropical forests can take a serious toll on the number of animal species living there. Mammals and amphibians are particularly sensitive to the effects of ...

User comments : 90

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GSwift7
3 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2010
"But our new survey shows just the opposite."
OR
"Our surveys reveal a small decline in the proportion of people who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today,"

These statements can't both be true, and 10 percent is not a small decline, that's huge.

"But people who do not trust climate scientists base their conclusions on their personal observations of nature. These 'low-trust' individuals were especially aware of the recent decline in average world temperatures; they were the ones in our survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007."

I'm willing to bet that they didn't ask these people whether or not they are aware of the inacuracies and guesswork involved in climate science. I, for one, distrust climate scientists because I know the problems with their data, not because of this recent cool weather. Any data set shorter than hundreds of years is trivial, and nobody has good data that long on climate.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2010
Besides, public opinion has absolutely no bearing on reality. 99% of people poled 1000 years ago would have told you that the earth is flat and that it is the center of the universe.
ArtflDgr
3.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2010
Any time they use a sentence like "large majority" it means that they dont have a majority!
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
Considering the percentages and responses at the bottom, they must've been surveying a group that is markedly more economically intelligent than the average American.

marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2010
"In survey after survey, overwhelming majorities say they believe in God. More than nine in 10 Americans�95 percent�told ABC News polltakers that they believe in God. A Gallup Organization survey for CNN and USA Today last December found much the same thing: Nearly nine in 10�86 percent�said they believed in God, while another 8 percent said they believe in some form of "Universal spirit or higher power."

What's more, nearly eight in 10 adults�78 percent�say they've always been believers, and another 6 percent say they hadn't believed but now do. "

http://www.washin...2400.htm

Live by the poll.....
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2010
Marjon, your source is utter crap. Grow up.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2010
"More than nine-in-ten adults (92%) say they believe in God or a universal spirit." p.6

http://religions....er-1.pdf
Caliban
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2010

Are you saying, mangy, that their belief in Global Warming is just as baseless as their belief in God?
Get a grip, nitwit.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2010

Are you saying, mangy, that their belief in Global Warming is just as baseless as their belief in God?
Get a grip, nitwit.

Another data point.
What I suggest is that those atheists who may trumpet this poll should also be aware of other polls.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2010
A completely irrelevant data point. Atheists don't care if you believe in God. We only care if you're in the wild sharing false information or claiming knowledge that you cannot possibly have in order to convert unwitting people.
mysticshakra
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2010
Skeptic, sounds like you jusrt described AGW to a T.

Nisaj, statistically proven is a statement of nontruth.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2010
Skeptic, sounds like you jusrt described AGW to a T.
Then where is your descriptive encompassing theory for the current state of our climate system?

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Funny enough, "Mr. Christian Survey", loves statistics when they assist him, but really hates them when they don't. He both 5 ranked you and posted evidence that you wouldn't accept. Priceless, utterly priceless.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2010
Then where is your descriptive encompassing theory for the current state of our climate system?

What is the basis of AGW theory? Failing computer models and a political agenda.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2010
I'm willing to bet that they didn't ask these people whether or not they are aware of the inacuracies and guesswork involved in climate science.


Asking questions in that way is a good way to bias your results.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2010
What makes science great is that consensus and poll data are irrelevant. What matters is if the data supports the theory. So far it does not so what anyone believes is immaterial.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2010
What is the basis of AGW theory? Failing computer models and a political agenda.
Spoken by a true non-scientist.

What matters is if the data supports the theory. So far it does not so what anyone believes is immaterial.

Go ahead and show us the contrary data in peer reviewed research marjon. Take your time.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2010
Go ahead and show us the contrary data in peer reviewed research marjon.

http://petesplace...man.html

Does AGW explain how the Vikings could settle Greenland 1000 years ago?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2010
Does AGW explain how the Vikings could settle Greenland 1000 years ago?
No, nor does it attempt or intend to. Try again.

And no, none of the papers on your "Pete's Place" blog refute AGW either.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2010
http://www.nature...845.html

Give that a read for the current state of Greenland and its ice cover.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2010
Does AGW explain how the Vikings could settle Greenland 1000 years ago?
No, nor does it attempt or intend to. Try again.

And no, none of the papers on your "Pete's Place" blog refute AGW either.

If current AGW theory can't explain the past observations, how valid is AGW theory?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2010
If current AGW theory can't explain the past observations, how valid is AGW theory?

This is like saying "If gravity theory can't explain the passage of time, how useful a theory is it?"

AGW deals with events within the human industrial age. 1000 years ago is not the human industrial age. Please try again.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2010
"the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified. "
http://www.worlds...84X.html
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2010
If current AGW theory can't explain the past observations, how valid is AGW theory?

This is like saying "If gravity theory can't explain the passage of time, how useful a theory is it?"

AGW deals with events within the human industrial age. 1000 years ago is not the human industrial age. Please try again.

If current AGW theory can't explain the past observations, how valid is AGW theory?
What happened 1000 years ago and is that being repeated today? If you can't answer that question, you can't support AGW as the sole driver today.
Simonsez
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2010
"Large majority of Americans still believe in global warming, Stanford poll finds"

Well, that's good that we do - global warming is a real occurrence and to claim it isn't shows ignorance of supported science.

AGW, on the other hand, is a complete fabrication designed to generate fear and profit. Humans had absolutely nothing to do with the previous ice age or warming period, and we still don't have anything to do with it.

I suppose that isn't entirely true - we may be responsible for a percentile, or less than a percentile of global warming via atmospheric pollution.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2010
"the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified. "
http://www.worlds...84X.html

Refutations of your linked work are as such:

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
Line by Line Refutation - Der Treibhauseffekt Existiert Doch
http://www.ing-bu...eite.pdf

Unfortunately for you Gerlich is a pseudoscientist.
Gerlich was a member of the European Science and Environment Forum. The agenda of this group was to discredit government safety regulations and reports on such things as genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone, pesticides, public smoking, and global warming. Gerlich's coalition fought to discredit the World Health Organisation, and attempted to rebuff the science used by the USA's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2010
If current AGW theory can't explain the past observations, how valid is AGW theory?
It's valid as it's a theory that deals exclusively with anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions generated by industry. What was our industrial production of greenhouse gasses 1000 years ago? Right, just about zero.
What happened 1000 years ago and is that being repeated today?
No it isn't being repeated today, and unfortunately I can't speak to what happened at that time. It is not a focus of my study as it is wholly irrelevant to the topic of current industrial emissions.
If you can't answer that question, you can't support AGW as the sole driver today.
Non-sequitor. Just as AGW can't apply to climate in the ages before mankind, it cannot apply to the times predating human industry. Please try again.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2010
No it isn't being repeated today,

How do you know?
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2010
No it isn't being repeated today,

How do you know?


Mangy, find us a fossil of an automobile, coal-fired power plant, or oil rig from 1,000 years ago, and then it might be possible to claim that AGW was responsible for Viking settlement of Greenland- otherwise, don't ask stupid questions.

Take the noise into the mangyhole.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2010
No it isn't being repeated today,

How do you know?


Mangy, find us a fossil of an automobile, coal-fired power plant, or oil rig from 1,000 years ago, and then it might be possible to claim that AGW was responsible for Viking settlement of Greenland- otherwise, don't ask stupid questions.

Take the noise into the mangyhole.

That was not the question. What caused the warming 1000 years ago? If no one knows, then why can't this be the reason for any present climate changes? AGW is the best guess to match the computer model and the politics?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2010
How do you know?
Because I can do math, can you? Zero industrial combustion yields zero industrial greenhouse gasses.
What caused the warming 1000 years ago?
Not sure.
If no one knows, then why can't this be the reason for any present climate changes?
Because the spike in CO2 is not lagging behind the warming, it is preceeding it. This is unprecedented in the climatological record and but one of many points evidencing AGW's validity.
AGW is the best guess to match the computer model and the politics?
No, it is the only theory that takes all current observations and empirical evidences into account while standing up to peer reviewed scrutiny.

Effectively, I don't expect you to get it because you don't believe in anything else within the realm of science. You don't believe in evolution, the big bang, agw, biomedical research, psychology, sociology, etc. Basically, you need an education.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2010
This is unprecedented in the climatological record and but one of many points evidencing AGW's validity.

How long is that record? What is the resolution?
it is the only theory that takes all current observations and empirical evidences into account

You mean it is the only way the modelers can get their computer model to match the data.
NASA is trying to launch a satellite called CLARREO in order to obtain NIST traceable radiometric data from orbit. It is needed to drive down the uncertainty in their climate models.
"what is usually overlooked is the fact that the atmosphere is much more subtle and complicated
than expressed in climate models. "http://waysandmea...test.pdf
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2010
How long is that record?
Several hundred thousand years depending on which particular proxie you use, in some cases millions of years however size is limited to which reoslution you'd want for statistiical significance.
What is the resolution?
Which resolution would you like? The more precise you'd like the smaller and more recent it gets.
You mean it is the only way the modelers can get their computer model to match the data.
What is this supposed to mean? It sounds as though you're saying, "AGW is the only theory because it's the only way the modelers can get the data to fit." That would effectively mean AGW is right.
NASA is trying to launch a satellite called CLARREO. It is needed to drive down the uncertainty in their climate models.
And you're calling that a bad thing? Being more precise and gaining more information allows us to verify or falsify predictions of AGW. We're trying to prove it wrong, so far we can't.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010
And you're calling that a bad thing?

I take it as an admission they know their models have many flaws.
Javinator
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2010
Theories can't be proven right, only proven wrong. The only way to make a theory stronger is to try to prove it wrong in as many ways as you can. Each time an attempt to prove a theory wrong fails it increases the likelihood that the theory is correct.

Trying to prove theories wrong isn't admitting the theory is wrong, it's just a step in gaining evidence for the theory.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010
Theories can't be proven right, only proven wrong. The only way to make a theory stronger is to try to prove it wrong in as many ways as you can. Each time an attempt to prove a theory wrong fails it increases the likelihood that the theory is correct.

Trying to prove theories wrong isn't admitting the theory is wrong, it's just a step in gaining evidence for the theory.

Of course that can depend upon how the theory is worded and how much effort is placed upon falsifying a theory.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010
Of course that can depend upon how the theory is worded and how much effort is placed upon falsifying a theory.
And you seem upset that we're putting in a lot of effort.

What exactly is your stance?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010
Of course that can depend upon how the theory is worded and how much effort is placed upon falsifying a theory.
And you seem upset that we're putting in a lot of effort.

What exactly is your stance?

I don't trust wild eyed scientists like Hansen or Anderson (http://www.arp.harvard.edu/) when the solution to a problem they say exists is to take over the world economy.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2010
I don't trust wild eyed scientists like Hansen or Anderson (http://www.arp.harvard.edu/) when the solution to a problem they say exists is to take over the world economy.
No one is suggesting taking over the world economy. Your stance is in error.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010
"The Kyoto Protocol divides the nations into groups through an arbitrary level of CO2 production. Those above can continue above the level but only if they purchase carbon credits from those under the level. The fallacy of the idea is it is designed to reduce CO2 when it actually allows a continuance of use. In reality it’s a naked, unsustainable transfer of wealth."
http://www.canada...le/23986
Control energy, control the economy.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010
Except you're wrong.

We used the cap and trade market with CFCs and the industry found cheaper and better ways to do it without use of CFCs. Energy is no different. There is no control over energy, only control over carbon emissions. If you can innovate and "utilizing free market ideals" develop a way in which to prevent emission, then you don't have to pay or be subject to ANY financial repercussions.

If I run a power company and never release any CO2 I can still sell energy and never pay a dime for a carbon credit. It is a measure to increase efficiency, because the free market isn't doing it.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2010
There is no control over energy, only control over carbon emissions.

What is the source of the carbon? ENERGY PRODUCTION!

The cap and tax plan is a fake market created by government fiat designed to enrich Al Gore, which it has.

the free market isn't doing it.

Because their is no cost benefit to the consumer.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2010
What is the source of the carbon? ENERGY PRODUCTION!
No, not really. The source of the carbon is in the fuel and methods of control of exhaust produced by burning said fuel. As we all know there are other manners of creating energy that release no carbon, ie:wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydrodynamic, etc.

The cap and tax plan is a fake market created by government fiat designed to enrich Al Gore, which it has.
I highly doubt the design of a sweeping economic reform is simply in order to make Al Gore rich. What is more likely is that Al Gore capitalized on an emerging market that he helped create, much as any free market enterpeneur would.

Because their is no cost benefit to the consumer.

Replace consumer with company and you're correct, as you wrote it, you're entirely wrong.

Do you really think Massa's coal company, Exxon's Corporate office, or anyone in the carbon based energy industry gives a rat's ass about you? They just want your money.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010

That's right- they want your money so badly, that they've got their puppet, Senator J. Boehner, trying to legislate a taxpayer funded cleanup of BP's oilgush...oh the hypocrisy!!!
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2010

That's right- they want your money so badly, that they've got their puppet, Senator J. Boehner, trying to legislate a taxpayer funded cleanup of BP's oilgush...oh the hypocrisy!!!

Let's bankrupt BP and then the taxpayers can pick up the tab.
Boehner is a minority congressman, not a senator. BP paid considerable lobbying money to democrats. Looks like they will get screwed by the politicians they tried to pay off.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2010
emerging market that he helped create

Free markets are not created by governments.

They just want your money.

So does the government. The government can just take it by force. Any business must persuade me to buy their products.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010
Let's bankrupt BP and then the taxpayers can pick up the tab.
Boehner is a minority congressman, not a senator. BP paid considerable lobbying money to democrats. Looks like they will get screwed by the politicians they tried to pay off.


You forgot to mention his republicrat affiliatio, marj.
And your statement regarding the government have no role in launching emerging markets is just as wreathed in fantasy as virtually everything else you post here.
Ever heard of D.A.R.P.A., for instance?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2010
I said Boehner was a MINORITY congressman.
DARPA does not create markets. It invests in technology for national defense which may or may not be developed by a non-government business into a marketable product.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010
Marjon,

You still ignored that you tarred the dems with the "BP Bribes" brush, but you failed to include Boehner in that group- don't try to evade. You are about as maneuverable as a turtle on its back.

DARPA funded the research that birthed the INTERNET- which you should know, but even if you did, you wouldn't admit, as it constitutes an "inconvenient truth" that puts the lie to your objectivist fantasy world. Hypocrite.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2010
"Brunswick's Washington office employs political and congressional veterans including Hilary Rosen, a former Democratic congressional aide; Anthony Coley and David Sutphen, former aides to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.;
"Other BP lobbyists from lobbying firms include Jim Turner, a former House Democrat from Texas now with the Arnold & Porter firm; Ken Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff under President Reagan whose lobbying firm employs several former top Democratic and Republican congressional aides; Michelle Laxalt, a Republican with ties to GOP lawmakers; and Michael Berman, president of the Duberstein firm and a former Democratic Senate aide and party adviser.
"BP has had several Washington insiders on a company advisory council, including former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle,

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washin...qbS9Dv00
"
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2010
DARPA funded the research that birthed the INTERNET-

People WANT the internet.
No one is being forced to buy internet access.
Carbon trading is an artificial market that no one wants so the government is trying to force the market on the world.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010

Free markets are not created by governments.


Do you mean to say that the Internet is not a freemarket entity, that is more or less a free market in and of itself?

Try again.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2010

Free markets are not created by governments.


Do you mean to say that the Internet is not a freemarket entity, that is more or less a free market in and of itself?

Try again.

"Unlike most booms, the low-carbon economy is not a free market. It was forged in the idealistic fires of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement according to which the West (except the US and Australia) agreed to cut carbon emissions."
"Before a project can produce a carbon credit, it must be registered with the Indian government, cleared by internationally certified inspectors and finally the United Nations (UN), a process that can take two years. "
http://www.hindus...399.aspx
The government created the product and the market and forced people to buy. NOT a free market.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2010
The internet was a spin-off product. DARPA did not create the internet market. Thousands of entrepreneurs did.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2010
The internet was a spin-off product. DARPA did not create the internet market. Thousands of entrepreneurs did.


Mental gymnastics will just have to do, when the facts don't fit your fiction, eh?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2010
The internet was a spin-off product. DARPA did not create the internet market. Thousands of entrepreneurs did.


Mental gymnastics will just have to do, when the facts don't fit your fiction, eh?

The internet, a computer network system, did NOTHING in the economy until entrepreneurs were able to create the PCs and SW to take advantage of the network. DARPA did not create the market. DARPA funded research the created a computer network. This network was based upon a network created by Lincoln Laboratory for national defense.
That is the trouble with socialists. They can't even identify a market.
The artificial market created by governments to sell the artificial carbon credit shows that government recognize the power of a free market. Too bad they still don't understand governments can't force markets into existence and expect them to not collapse.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2010
The internet, a computer network system, did NOTHING in the economy until entrepreneurs were able to create the PCs and SW to take advantage of the network
Completely false. The Internet was birthed by allowing reasearch communities, the engines of technological innovation, to produce products at a far faster rate, as well as spread technological advantage throughout the US in record time.

You're so ignorant. The fact you think the internet was built before PCs shows how truly backwards you are.

You're from Athol aren't you?
Shootist
not rated yet Jun 12, 2010
Marjon, your source is utter crap. Grow up.


Gallup?
Shootist
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2010
The internet, a computer network system, did NOTHING in the economy until entrepreneurs were able to create the PCs and SW to take advantage of the network
Completely false. The Internet was birthed by allowing reasearch communities, the engines of technological innovation, to produce products at a far faster rate, as well as spread technological advantage throughout the US in record time.

You're so ignorant. The fact you think the internet was built before PCs shows how truly backwards you are.

You're from Athol aren't you?


All, y'all are wrong. Neither DARPA nor Universities popularized or commercialized the internet. AOL did. Were you there, on Archie, or Gopher or NNTP, when AOL dumped one million newbies on the Internet? When prior, less then 500,000 people used the net?

Stop yapping 'bout stuff you know nuthin' about.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2010
"The idea – radical
at the time – was to create a system in which
all the radar surveillance, target tracking, and
other operations would be coordinated by
computers, which in turn would be based on
a highly experimental MIT machine known
as Whirlwind: the first “real-time” computer
capable of responding to events as fast as
they occurred. Project Lincoln would eventually
result in a continent-spanning system of
23 centers that each housed up to 50 human
radar operators, plus two redundant real-time
computers capable of tracking up to 400 airplanes
at once."
"By
the mid-1960s, Project MAC would evolve
into the world’s first online community,
complete with online bulletin boards, e-mail,
virtual friendships, an open-source software
exchange – and hackers."
"By March 1982, TCP/IP version 4 was
deemed reliable enough for the Department of Defense to make it
the standard for all military computer networking."
http://www.darpa....9255.pdf
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2010
All, y'all are wrong. Neither DARPA nor Universities popularized or commercialized the internet.

I agree. The government did not create the market for the internet.
Governments have attempted to create a market, by force, for carbon. As it is not a free market, it will fail.
Entrepreneurs, not a government, incorporated the internet system into a product for people to easily use.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2010
All, y'all are wrong. Neither DARPA nor Universities popularized or commercialized the internet. AOL did. Were you there, on Archie, or Gopher or NNTP, when AOL dumped one million newbies on the Internet? When prior, less then 500,000 people used the net?
The internet existed before AOL, and you're not speaking to my statement, regardless of the fact you quoted it. Gopher was great, then f'ing chat rooms came along.

No one said popularize, we said monetize. The internet became a welath generator as soon as University research labs were using it to correlate data and experimental findings.
Shootist
1 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2010
What is the basis of AGW theory? Failing computer models and a political agenda.
Spoken by a true non-scientist.


Jerry Pournelle isn't a "true scientist"? Freeman Dyson isn't a "true scientist"?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2010
Then link the quotes, in context, and let's see when and who actually said them. No source is as good as not sourcable.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2010
"In survey after survey, overwhelming majorities say they believe in God. More than nine in 10 Americans�95 percent�told ABC News polltakers that they believe in God. A Gallup Organization survey for CNN and USA Today last December found much the same thing: Nearly nine in 10�86 percent�said they believed in God, while another 8 percent said they believe in some form of "Universal spirit or higher power."

What's more, nearly eight in 10 adults�78 percent�say they've always been believers, and another 6 percent say they hadn't believed but now do. "

http://www.washin...2400.htm

Live by the poll.....


In other words, 6 percent of Americans became dumber. And that doesn't say personal god, it includes Deists, Pantheists,and idiots.
Jimee
not rated yet Jun 13, 2010
It's always surprising how fiercely we can hold on to beliefs, notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. Climate change (AGW) is very difficult to deny, but it seems easy for some to cling to the fringe and believe anything and everything which can be stretched to support their (our?) preconceptions.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2010
It's always surprising how fiercely we can hold on to beliefs, notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. Climate change (AGW) is very difficult to deny, but it seems easy for some to cling to the fringe and believe anything and everything which can be stretched to support their (our?) preconceptions.

It is easy to question the anthropogenic part of GW when one remembers correlation is not causation,
and when many other scientists who have studied climate for decades also question the 'A' part.
And when no one understands why it was warmer 1000 years ago.
Good scientists are supposed to be skeptical.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2010
First off, AGW is a dead theory. It has been supplanted by AGCC, or Climate Change. The reasoning for this is the thought process, which is well validated, that adding or retaining additional energy in an oscillating system leads to greater oscillations around the equilibrium point. This is also supported by thermodynamics.

AGCC states that due to changes in the environment, due to man, we're retaining more energy within the environment and upsetting natural systems.

Would anyone care to attempt to refute that or would you all like to continue talking out of your asses? Keep in mind this takes ALL of our industrial, land use, and emissions changes to the environment in addition to pollution, manufacturing waste and agricultural runoff.

I'm waiting for a proper refutation, otherwise those denying the statements of the theory are akin to creationists speaking out against evolution.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2010
AGCC

Just as Popper described, change theory to fit observations.
Does AGCC explain how the Vikings could settle Greenland?
AGCC states that due to changes in the environment, due to man, we're retaining more energy within the environment and upsetting natural systems.

How are these changes quantified?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2010
"AGCC is a not-for-profit non-governmental organisation, engaged in the development of a new initiative within the UNFCCC which will bring together key developed and developing countries to lead the creation of a Global Climate Community (GCC)."
http://www.climat...ut2.html
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2010
AGCC

Just as Popper described, change theory to fit observations.
Does AGCC explain how the Vikings could settle Greenland?
Again with this, Marjon? AGCC still does not speak to the conditions prior to the indutrial revolution nor should it.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2010
AGCC

Just as Popper described, change theory to fit observations.
Does AGCC explain how the Vikings could settle Greenland?
Again with this, Marjon? AGCC still does not speak to the conditions prior to the indutrial revolution nor should it.

Unless what caused 'global climate change' 1000 years ago can be ruled out as the cause for current observations, AGCC is bunk.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2010
Unless what caused 'global climate change' 1000 years ago can be ruled out as the cause for current observations, AGCC is bunk.

Sorry, science doesn't work that way. You might think so seeing as your only argument for anything is "if it doesn't support you, it supports me", but then again, what more could be expected from a creationist.

You make some horrid assumptions:

1) We know what caused the Medieval Warm Period with certainty
2) That the warming today is of the same scope and size as the warming during the MWP
3) That the inherent characteristics of that warming and this warming are the same

All three of those assumptions are wrong. Which means that again, you are wrong.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2010
Unless what caused 'global climate change' 1000 years ago can be ruled out as the cause for current observations, AGCC is bunk.

Sorry, science doesn't work that way. You might think so seeing as your only argument for anything is "if it doesn't support you, it supports me", but then again, what more could be expected from a creationist.

You make some horrid assumptions:

1) We know what caused the Medieval Warm Period with certainty
2) That the warming today is of the same scope and size as the warming during the MWP
3) That the inherent characteristics of that warming and this warming are the same

All three of those assumptions are wrong. Which means that again, you are wrong.

Those are your assumptions as you assert humans are the ONLY cause of any current observations. If you don't know what caused the MWP how do you know that is not the cause NOW?
Mann had to fake his hockey stick to justify AGW as he couldn't explain MWP.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2010
Justification for AGW?
"The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing ", Phil Jones.
http://www.powerl...5591.php
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2010
Yet another link to an article stitched together from numerous out-of-context quotes, and padded with enough supposition to float the Hindenburg, from another rightist blog.
You suck, mangy, and I'm tired of your endless bullshit. Either use real, peer-reviewed science, or fuck off and die. Day in and day out with your ego-stroking wankfest. Your life must be pathetic indeed for it to compel you to inflict yourself upon the rest of us like this.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
Yet another link to an article stitched together from numerous out-of-context quotes, and padded with enough supposition to float the Hindenburg, from another rightist blog.
You suck, mangy, and I'm tired of your endless bullshit. Either use real, peer-reviewed science, or fuck off and die. Day in and day out with your ego-stroking wankfest. Your life must be pathetic indeed for it to compel you to inflict yourself upon the rest of us like this.

What a rational, scientific response! Keep up with the data points proving the irrationality of the 'liberals'.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
Those are your assumptions as you assert humans are the ONLY cause of any current observations.
I think not. You should read your own posts.
If you don't know what caused the MWP how do you know that is not the cause NOW?
If you don't know what caused the MWP how can you assert that it is the cause now?
Mann had to fake his hockey stick to justify AGW as he couldn't explain MWP.
Calculative errors aside, could you do the math that Mann included in his program? Sometimes models fail, this is why we review them. As I said in other posts, I'm pleased the error was found. All scientists are pleased when errors are found. Do you know of Hendrik Schon? He was a brilliant physicist who was cranking out published works at an advanced rate, then we found that a lot of his work didn't appear to be legit. We removed his papers from the body of knowledge, but we didn't scrap the field of nanotechnology because of it.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
Calculative errors aside, could you do the math that Mann included in his program?

Obviously Mann could not do the math and neither could his 'peer' reviewers.
He certainly had opportunities to consult with experts who could do the statistics, but did not and even went as far as restricting his data for a time so no one else could check his math.
He did not demonstrate an eagerness to have his work challenged.

If you don't know what caused the MWP how can you assert that it is the cause now?

Given such uncertainty, how can AGWites believe humans are the sole cause now?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2010
Obviously Mann could not do the math and neither could his 'peer' reviewers.
Well I'm not going to speak to that because I don't know who did the first rounds of peer review, however McKitrick did his review and found problems. Typically with long form complex mathematical modeling it can take a year or two to properly vet results. McKitrick did the vetting in about 5, which implies to me that it wasn't simple math, and I highly doubt that you could have done any better.
He certainly had opportunities to consult with experts who could do the statistics,
Mann is a statistician, and did collaborate with multiple people over the 15 years he's worked on this model.
He did not demonstrate an eagerness to have his work challenged.
Neither do you.
Given such uncertainty, how can AGWites believe humans are the sole cause now?
Who said sole cause? Everything is a system marjon. If there wasn't a system, there'd be nothing for us to talk about.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
Mann is a statistician,

No, he is not. http://www.meteo..../cv.html
Wegman, a statistician was very critical of his 'work'.
A reason McKitrick took so long was Mann and Nature would not release the data.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2010
A reason McKitrick took so long was Mann and Nature would not release the data.
That's not true in the least, but thanks for trying. Mann's model was never passed on to Nature. Mann was the one who was preventing the model from being passed out, and I think that was disgraceful of him.
No, he is not. http://www.meteo..../cv.html

Yes, Marjon, he is a statistical physicist with a doctorate in natural world mechanics.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2010
Statistical physics does not make one a statistician.
Your claim is not supported on his published CV. What is your source?
BTW, statistical physics: "starting from the kinetic
theory of gases and proceeding all the way to Bose–Einstein and Fermi–Dirac statistics."
This is a CV for a professional statistician:
http://www.galaxy...ume2.htm
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
The man has over 18 CVs online, you picked the only one that didn't contain his applied mathematics degree or his extensive time as a student aid to climatologists as a statistician. Seriously man, get a clue.

And Wegman's papers on AGW have all been refuted, find a new tree to climb.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2010
The man has over 18 CVs online, you picked the only one that didn't contain his applied mathematics degree or his extensive time as a student aid to climatologists as a statistician. Seriously man, get a clue.

And Wegman's papers on AGW have all been refuted, find a new tree to climb.

Which one to believe?
I chose the one posted by his university.
A 'student aid' does not a statistician make. Wegman IS a statistician. It doesn't matter to a statistician the source of the data. Numbers are numbers, unless one is trying to obtain a specific result like someone heavily invested in climate research.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2010
If you want to keep pushing Wegman, perhaps you should read his paper.

More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent "little ice age" were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.


From the summary of analyses of the MBH paper as reproduced by the NAS. Wegman supported the final conclusions of the hockey stick and merely criticized the MWP. This is probably why you hang on it so much when no one really cares.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2010
If you want to keep pushing Wegman, perhaps you should read his paper.

More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent "little ice age" were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.


From the summary of analyses of the MBH paper as reproduced by the NAS. Wegman supported the final conclusions of the hockey stick and merely criticized the MWP. This is probably why you hang on it so much when no one really cares.

What paper?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2010
"Where to send climate police:
Edward J. Wegman
Department of Computational and Data Sciences
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030"
http://www.galaxy...Nov5.pdf
frenchie
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
A moron is a man who deprives you of silence without providing you with useful information.

Think that describes this whole 89+ comment dicussion marjon is having.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
A moron is a man who deprives you of silence without providing you with useful information.

Think that describes this whole 89+ comment dicussion marjon is having.

Did you have anything to add about AGW or the lack of any reference by SH for his Wegman comment?
Science papers provide sources. I do that and I am ridiculed. Others don't and are praised. Is this how real science is practiced?
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
A moron is a man who deprives you of silence without providing you with useful information.

Think that describes this whole 89+ comment dicussion marjon is having.


Did you have anything to add about AGW or the lack of any reference by SH for his Wegman comment?
Science papers provide sources. I do that and I am ridiculed. Others don't and are praised. Is this how real science is practiced?


Once again, mangy tries to establish the claim that assertion, out-of-context quotes, quote mining, and citations from "research" that is non peer-reviewed(if not outright dismissed) -and from
agressively agenda'd pseudoscientific sources is equivalent to actual Science.

Wrong again.