Despite the panoply of Republican political elite suffering from acute anti-science syndrome (Santorum, Gingrich, Inhofe), a basic reality:
A majority of Americans (including a plurality of Republicans) understand that climate deniers are deceivers and disconnected from reality.
Earlier today, the Brookings Institution released Belief in Global Warming on the Rebound: National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change. This graphic shows, quite clearly, the reason for the title.
"When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we "believe in climate change". Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity's activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming."
Understanding of evidence of climate change by selected demographic categories
|
Group |
Solid Evidence |
Not Solid Evidence |
Not Sure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democrat |
78% |
15% |
7% |
|
Republican |
47% |
42% |
11% |
|
Independent |
55% |
30% |
15% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
White |
64% |
26% |
10% |
|
Non-White |
60% |
27% |
14% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
58% |
30% |
12% |
|
Female |
66% |
22% |
12% |
|
College Degree |
60% |
27% |
13% |
|
No College Degree |
66% |
26% |
11% |
|
|
|
|
|
NSAPOCC2011
To be clear, this work is rather limited. The first step of moving from denial to action is recognizing that the planetary system is warming. Then there is the question of causation. It seems almost certain that the numbers re understanding of the scientific understanding of humanity's significant contribution to the warming would be less than the percentage understanding that the planet is warming.
Even so, there is something quite disturbing to consider within the Brookings polling. As Chris Mooney put it:
And here's the thing: Of the deniers--Democrat or Republican, but mostly Republican--81 percent also think that "scientists are overstating evidence about global warming for their own interests." That's a finding I've never seen before--and a very disturbing one.
"Disturbing one" on multiple levels.
To believe that "scientists are overstating evidence" is, by any stretch of the imagination, an anti-science attitude. Science is at the core of modern life -- creating opportunities and problems, improving understanding, etc ... -- and to have such deep anti-science attitudes even about one arena of science creates serious questions about overall scientific understanding and respect for the scientific process.
And, this anti-science attitude highlights that science is -- sadly -- an increasingly partisan issue. Again, back to Chris:
There was a time when I could argue that everybody's basically pro-science -- it's just that Republicans reject it on a few pet issues. Now, though, I'm not so sure. The kinds of sentiments being expressed in these surveys suggest that trust in science itself is becoming partisan.
Roughly one in six of those polled believe that the scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy to distort science when it comes to climate change. Such a fundamental disdain for the scientific community and scientists in terms of their ethics and professional standards cannot be called anything other than anti-science.
Follow A. Siegel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/A_Siegel
LIDAR forever!
Oh, I know. You think I'm just fantasizing, while I drive my 12 year old RAV4 that now burns both gas and oil.
But NO! My neighbor down the block (the one who sported a 20 foot PALIN FOR PREZ banner from his front deck (in defiance of HOA regs, or did so up until he started wearing an ankle bracelet, prior to attending the county hoosegaw for selling phony stock certificates) told me the above is all true about climatologists. So, being only an atmospheric scientist rather than an all-knowing financial fraudster, naturally I believed him. After all, he drove a HUMMER and was my neighbor. So, he must know.
What is your scientific education and professional experience that somehow leads you to believe that you understand more about climate science than the experts at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences?
--------------------
"Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels...
"[W]hile future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100... Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe storms and surges. In the Arctic regions... the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly..."
-- Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Senate testimony, 2005
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Science_and_Economics.asp
Unless you're a hopeless misanthrope, how can you not?
Those folks get a free pass.
Everyone else is on the hook for the quality of the future.
By the way, anyone reading this in the first category may feel free to include me in their will.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century...
In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. .
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
What period of time was the perfect climate? What period would you choose to return to?
Would you call me stupid or ignorant or a "flat earther? Of course you would ... that's what you do.
But you never answer the questions.
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/picture.php?id=281
"What period of time was the perfect climate?" Tough to say. I'd choose that period that all of human civilized history was lived under.
Catastrophic AGW is impossible if heat isn't building up as the models predicted.
There is great debate on where is the missing heat
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t
Trenberth
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/kevin-trenberths-weird-opinions-about.html
Since 1998 thee has been no build up of heat in the atmosphere and since 2006 when the ARGOS buoy system went on line there has been no build up of heat in the top 2 K of the oceans.
This is impossible if the models are correct but the failure of the models to predict reality shows that they ARE NOT CORRECT.
The alarmists aren't sure if the missing heat is at the bottom of the oceans where it won't cause global warming for 1,000 years or if it was reflected out into space by Chinese coal.
In either case it isn't going to impact us.
Stop lying, Netdr.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Their projection of the AR4 prediction of warming is completely inaccurate.
They just hope you don't catch them in the fib.
The inability of climate scientists to predict climate even 11 years in their future proves that their level of understanding is very low !Why spend tens of trillions based on it ?
AR4 predictions .3 ° C warming between 2001 and today.
http://tiny.cc/zwa7x
Actual COOLING between 2001 and today.
20001
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
http://tiny.cc/plt8q
Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00610265 per year
Don’t get hung up on positive or negative the real story is how far wrong the prediction is.
This has been posted to you before but you cling to your delusions. Why ?
netdr: "The basics of climate reality have to first be understood."
The scientists have developed their understanding over 200 years or more. How long have you been at it netdr?
netdr: "Catastrophic AGW is impossible if heat isn't building up as the models predicted."
The heat is building up. It is measured. More energy enters the outer atmosphere than leaves.
netdr: "There is great debate on where is the missing heat"
If you say so. The scientists who declared the missing heat know where it is. They are working on measurement before they say it is there. They are honest. You are netdr.
netdr: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t -- Trenberth "
The deniers just love to trump this up into a denier gotcha. In reality, Trenberth knew all along where the heat was. In the sea. His lament was that we don't yet have a sufficiently extensive measurement network.
netdr: "Since 1998 thee has been no build up of heat in the atmosphere"
False. There has been heat build up in the atmosphere. Netdr would not hear about it from his partisan blogs of course.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901111001973
America is often out of sync.
And, note that in the face of economic challenges, it is not surprising that people put seemingly remote from their daily lives issues lower on the pecking order.
And, there is a difference between "serious problem" and "is it an issue/is it real". I doubt that Germans would deny science to the extent of Americans.
Your survey revolves around one town in Germany, Hamburg - maybe an outlier.
So, show us a few dozen surveys from elsewhere.
E.g., the following's based on 74 surveys since 2000, just in AMERICA.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k17856khp026w174/
Meanwhile, it seems America WAS synched with the world, as the global recession, initiated in 2008 by investment banking's financial chicanery, trumped ALL other concerns for two years.
But, relieved we weren't in for 1929 redux, a rebound occurred in 2011.
And by 2011, 11 formal, independent U.S. and U.K. investigations, also in Germany and the Netherlands, of so-called Climategate weighed in, detemining that professional hackers had cherry-picked out-of-context statements in order to smear scientists.
Links to all 11 independent, formal investigations of so-called "climategate" (all exonerations):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669_136964791.html
Links to 20 separate confirmations of Michael Mann's hockey stick temperature graph:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/the-hockey-stick-and-the-_b_1304399_137653040.html
Climate research credentials of the 16 "scientists" signing the Wall St. Journal's "No need to Panic about Global Warming" letter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/chasing-ice-climate-change_b_1300568_137601443.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697-2,00.html
"The strong majority of 58 percent who said they feared global warming about three years ago has declined to a minority of 42 percent."
The basal system (brain stem) is where the fight or flight stimulus/response manifests most profoundly. While a very important 'tool' when living in the savanna it has become a liability in our modern world. Because it demands our attention we tend to fill it up with conspiracy theories.
The cognitive center of critical thinking involves our ability to ignore the perceived threat like seeing the grass move (in the savanna) and understand it is caused by the wind and not an animal seeking its lunch.
We operate best when we involve the critical thinking aspect and down play the primal aspect.
The fear based conspiracy message of the oil companies and many posters is a call to the primal and unless we resist the urge to behave like non thinking animals we will follow the herd into a scary and forbidding future.
We can and should consider skeptics as a test of the science and not as proof that the science is wrong. We can think and should realize that conspiracies involving scientists on a world wide level is really nothing more than magical thinking.
The paranoia of the alarmists is funny to watch !
Certainly big oil is not behind all the skeptics some are driven/paid by corporations and individuals who may or may not have an oil interest.
SOme (very few) seem to be scientists who agree warming is happening but are not yet sure as to why.
netdr: "The paranoia of the alarmists is funny to watch ! "
Only to an unbalanced wing nut. Watch for more desertification of Texas this year.
I believe you would call it paranoid ?
And how many profiles have you had deleted for spamming?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets have been melting, and the melting has been accelerating.
That melting is causing sea levels to rise. In a worst-case scenario said melting may contribute over 6 feet in sea level rise by 2100 (and higher in the next centuries).
http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.170.8753&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/abs/ngeo694.html
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/disappearing-world-global-warming-claims-tropical-island-429764.html
I wonder if the folks who lived on that island think this "little" sea-level rise is nothing to worry about?
Oh, and here's a quote from your link:
"They find that GRACE measurements helped to identify the distribution of abnormally high rainfall over land resulting from the recent strong La Niña. This temporary transfer of large volumes of water from the oceans to the land surfaces also helps explain the large drop in global mean sea level. But they also expect the global mean sea level to begin climbing again."
http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/
For all the skeptics, who need more arguments, I recommend you send away for their complete package for the low price of just $71.90
I learned everything I needed to know once I read the list of "Special Appearances" to realize the why so many deniers are Republicans.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t863788/
The huge majorities of so-called “deniers” are not really saying it is ok to put more and more CO2 into the air. The real problem is that every solution offered to them costs more than they can afford. They understand that the whole purpose of a “carbon tax” or “cap and trade”, just as proponents do, is to raise prices on current forms of energy so new forms can compete. They read that many of these new forms of energy are many times more expensive that coal, that means electric bills many times higher. They are hearing about a future where they cannot afford energy, that’s too hard to contemplate, hence the denial. And all the science cannot convince them the consequences of putting CO2 in the air, is worse than a future they cannot afford.
And for the Al Gore side who love point to France and say SEE, the French only have 1/3 the carbon footprint per person of an American, so we should do better. Then turn around and fight any new nuclear plants in the US. Obama’s DOE Head Dr. Chu, said wind and solar cannot supply over 20-25% without storage.and cost 5 times more. And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s many interviews. It is NOT “Coal” or “wind and solar”, it’s Coal or Nuclear, with a little wind and solar.
Actually, if we actually pay attention to real costs and real benefits, climate mitigation is a highly profitable (societal) investment.
Essentially every major analysis related to climate change has been stove-piped and left out many of the most important value streams. (I could send you to 100s of pages I've written on this, see: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2010/06/16/all-costs-no-benefits/)
And, the whole point of a "carbon tax" is not to "raise prices on current forms of energy" but to have "current forms of energy" incorporate costs that are now externalize onto others than the producers/users of that energy. http://getenergysmartnow.com/2010/04/16/the-most-important-number-youve-never-heard-of/
I am not saying climate scientists have horns and a tail . The deficiencies in climate science are inherent in the science itself.
Comparing Climate science with Medicine for example is not rational.
The differences are, age of science, rate of learning, and objectivity of observations.
Climate science is a baby science and 99 % of all studies have been done since 1988 and Dr Hansen’s speech to congress. Medicine is thousands of years old.
The rate of learning is faster for medicine since studies can be completed in days or weeks and contaminating factors can be eliminated.
Models are the best way to test climate science against future data but they take 20 years or so to verify or disprove the assumptions.
The rate of accumulation of knowledge in climate science is much slower than in medicine.
Medicine is much more objective and the penalty for fooling oneself is more obvious.
Doctors found that they unintentionally overstated the effectiveness of the drug they were studying so they devised the double blind experiment. No such experiment is possible in climate science.
We don’t have 20 spare earths to drag into a lab and experiment with so of course climate science is less precise and less objective.
"The rate of learning is faster for medicine since studies can be completed in days or weeks and contaminating factors can be eliminated."
You have demonstrated that you at best don't know what you are talking about yet again, Netdr.
How long do you think it took medical scientists to reliably determine, for example, that smoking causes cancer in humans?
Hint: "weeks" is ridiculously short.
[ Rest of Netdr's repeatedly-recycled Gish Gallop* snipped ]
-----------------------
* "Neptune2" is one of Netdr's many online personas. Other personas include: "Texas-Titan", "Ptolemy101", "NGC2623", "Hoosier-Daddy25" & "leesburg-larry".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
** Gish Gallop: "A debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised... It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The lies are the ones being fed to you by industry shills, oil state politicians, amateur bloggers, and right-wing talking heads. The claim that water vapor isn't included in the models is one of them. A big one. It is a flat-out, bald-faced, big fat monster lie.
(And, by the way, removing water vapor from the models would reduce warming, not increase it. Not a very good way to "improve their point", is it?)
http://www.meltonengineering.com/Docs/Why%20is%20Climate%20Science%20So%20Hard%20To%20Believe.pdf
Climate unreality: There is a huge conspiracy of scientists fudging data in order to destroy the fossil fuel industry.