Our 2008 analysis of global warming misinformation finds that there was a very significant upswing in online activity.
This trend should be troubling to US policymakers and campaigners wanting to implement new greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
Here's the stats I've generated as evidence of my conclusions (click any of the images to enlarge):
"Global Warming" hoax
A Google blog search for the term "global warming" hoax between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009 reports 49,719 page results. The same search for the previous year reports only 22,077 page results.
"Global Warming" lie
A Google blog search for the term "global warming" lie between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009 reports 100,770 page results. The same search for the previous year reports only 50,016 page results. You can check out the fancy graph here.
"Global Warming" alarmists
A Google blog search for the term "global warming" alarmists between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009 reports 27,298 page results. The same search for the previous year reports only 13,864 page results. Fancy graph.
"Global Warming" skeptic
A Google blog search for the term "global warming" skeptic between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009 reports 73,956 page results. The same search for the previous year reports only 38,346 page results. Fancy graph.
Outside of a small band of ideologically motivated outlets, the majority of the mainstream media is unwilling to cover the nonsensical junk science of the right-wing think tanks and their cadre of scientists for hire. With this the case, the Internet is exploding with such information. And at the same time that we're seeing significantly more of this misinformation being spread about global warming online, we're also seeing more people than ever using the Internet as their main source of news and information.
Here's some recent findings that should trouble anyone working to implement new laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
1) The Internet is now a larger source of news for people than newspapers.Research conducted in December, 2008 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that the Internet is now used as a news source by more Americans than newspapers. The report found that: "for the first time in a Pew survey, more people say they rely mostly on the Internet for news than cite newspapers (35%). Television continues to be cited most frequently as a main source for national and international news, at 70%."
2) Millions of people are seeking global warming information online.In an average month more than 2.2 million people in the United States search for the term "global warming" on Google and another 368,000 people search for the term "climate change." The more climate misinformation that is posted on the Internet, the more likely that people searching for information on global warming will be exposed to it. In fact the number 2 search result for "global warming" on Google is currently a website run by the thoroughly discredited Competitive Enterprise Institute.
And the results of all this?
Opinion polls conducted in the United States over the last year confirm the upward trend in people who believe that global warming is not caused by human activity. One series of polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that between April and December, 2008 the number of respondents who attributed global warming to "long term planetary trends" and not human activity increased from 34 percent to 43 percent.
This upswing is in spite of the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releasing a report by top climate scientists from around the world concluding that global warming is "very likely"--or 90 per cent certain--caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
Legislators are going to be very hard pressed to implement strict new greenhouse gas regulations if almost a majority of the public believes that climate change has nothing to do with human activity. As will environmental groups who are urging average citizens to take personal action to reduce their carbon footprint.
Many people (even some well-known climate activists) have told me that the "deniers' days are over," so I hope these statistics are a wake-up call.
If this is going to be the year that we have the political leadership in the United States with the will to take real action on climate change, we're all going to have to double, or even triple our efforts to dispel the myths and lies being spread online about the realities of the situation.
Follow Kevin Grandia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kgrandia
It is a theory, and there are different models and measurement methods.
Certainly if we are going to make large changes in the economies of the world and direct resources to reducing temperature rather than healthcare, education or whatever, we should continue to evaluate the theories. Scientists do get it wrong occasionally.
I'm all for reducing the human footprint but would prefer to do it through population control than artificial tax, spending and regulation schemes. Then either way we will have a more pleasant planet for our children.
Does the Sun affect the climate? Yes, no doubt.
Does mankind affect the environment? Yes, no doubt.
Should we limit and/or control emissions? Yes, at the personal, community and political levels.
What about Cap and Trade or Carbon Credits? Sorry, not until you can assure me of:
1. The middle class and poor won't be hurt while a group of rich people get richer.
2. That the pain is equally felt by all.
3. No waivers or special treatment by any government agency.
You cannot live a wasteful lifestyle and "buy" credits and then say your supporting reducing green house gasses. If I have to suffer and physically change my lifestyle then so do you.
If someone what to stand up and support/deny global warming then they should be required to state if they have a financial stake in the argument.
Using models is not an exact science. If they were you would be able to put in data from lets say 1950 and show the exact climate (+/- 20%) we've had since then. When that happens then I'll believe in models.
Antarctica is warming..
http://www.livescience.com/environment/090121-antarctica-warming.html
You accept this "finding" because it conforms to your pre-disposed bias on this subject. In your warped view, Mann must be right because his position fits the liberal template inspite of the fact that his result contradicts the previous science. According to the liberal theory of "scientific consensus" you should reject Mann's result out-of-hand because it contradicts the vast majority of previous work.
For now, I will treat this claim with circumspection. Mann is implicitly claiming the satellite data is wrong: both Antacrtic temperature and sea ice extent measurements. Until he can convince me why both of those measurements are either wrong or misinterpretted, I will reject his findings.
First, you've linked a press release, not a research paper. Why do you suppose the author of this paper, Dr,. Michael Mann, would have a press release about his paper if he were purely motivated as a scientic researcher? The presence of this press conference indicates mann has other far less noble motives such as politics or self-aggrandizement.
Second, the lead author is Michael Mann, the same Mann of now discredited "Hockey Stick" fame. He was caught innappropriately manipulating his data to achieve a pre-conceived result. Until this paper has been carefully critiqued by other experts, there is no reason to believe it is any more accurate than his 1998 paper was.
Third, Mann is a well know AGW zealot. He is one of the three most prejudiced men in this field , Hansen and Trenberth being the others. Significant reason to question his results.
Fourth, last and most importantly, Mann's findings in this paper are in direct contradiction to other, previous, accepted work on the subject. see here: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2000)013%3C1674:VATIAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2 "The latter reasonably agrees with the trend of −0.042 ± 0.067°C yr−1 inferred from the satellite 20-yr record ... the observed cooling is intriguing" There are many others to cite as well.
The study makes perfect sense, as i said below. Your article on Anarctica is from 1999. The cooling of Eastern Anarctica was linked to another anthropogenic (human-caused) effect: ozone depletion. Mann's findings say that "the effect of ozone depletion was "overwhelming the influence of greenhouse warming,"" Now it seems the warming of Western Anarctica offsets the cooling of Eastern Anarctica. "Efforts to repair the ozone layer eventually will begin taking effect and the hole could be eliminated by the middle of this century. If that happens, all of Antarctica could begin warming on a par with the rest of the world," Steig said."
Read it and weep!
"The work of Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, New York, and Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, raised serious questions about the methodology of Mann's critics."
"What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925431.400-climate-the-great-hockey-stick-debate.html?page=3
A 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science states:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
http://books.nap.edu/nap-cgi/execsumm.cgi?record_id=11676
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long- term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
And of course, the statements from dozens of scientific academies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Given public opinion doesn't match the overwhelming scientific consensus, it's fair to say the deniers are doing well with PR. Propagandists tend to be more influential with public opinion than boring scientists.
that doesn't believe in global warming.
Just because something is not true, doesn't mean people won't believe that it is..
Remember we got George W Bush....
This is my backup:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
What is your backup, tr0ll?
So,no one, in the 400 years since the moon has been observed telescopically, had seen this pattern before.
So I think you could really say that now I'm a "Classical Non Professional Astronomer" perhaps.
In any event, what I am doing here is trying to provide the scientific evidence (which everyone can look up here on the internet) of why global warming can be occuring.
Personally, it just makes sense.
If you can pollute a bathtub of water with let's say, red food coloring, than you can pollute the world's oceans too. After all, the world's oceans are not infinite. And what does the experimental evidence say? All you have to do is to ask where plastic is found on the ocean and the answer is all over in fact in the very far reaches thousands of miles away from cities.
Lead is found in the air in the artic...
And of course we all know about air pollution...
The Oceans have been found to be more acidic and we do have something called acid rain that can pollute our lakes and rivers.
And as far as the other planets are concerned...these are natural settings untouched by us.
Experiments, if you will, that are double blind that just prove the idea that a denser atmosphere can hold more heat.
And that's what we are doing, making our atmosphere denser.
The internet as a source of information has supplanted the 'traditional' media (much to their dismay), and its ability to filter or control the flow of information and opinion. As a result people can (whether they do or not is suspect) get all available information on a particular subject before arriving at their own 'opinion' (emphasis critical).
So why the ‘denial’? Well the casual observer may find on the internet that Al Gore would refuse to have an open and public debate on the subject (where is the press on this one?). And intuitively, a reasonable person might conclude that the earth has warmed and cooled for eons (because it has), and wonder what could possibly be different this time. Or they may just come across a blog questioning why someone would not believe in AGW and find a multitude of differing opinions. This, Mr. Grandia, is where you come in. Fostering a debate on why there is any debate at all. Good show. But the real credit must go to Ms. Huffington who understands there has to be disagreement out there or you story would have never been posted. Let’s face it. No debate, no story.
Who do you trust on the debate about global warning? If you trust no one, and you aren't a climate scientist--Good luck. There are a lot of used car salesmen out there waiting to take you for a ride.
Responsible science journalists make it their job to be objective about science, if you think they are all brainwashed or taking payola--Good luck.
Let me concede one point to the "global warming is a hoax" crowd. The Kyoto Treaty was fatally flawed, and its mechanism didn't work. Kyoto earlycreated a popular schism that irresponsible people took advantage of. . But its main problem was it came too early.
Now is a much better time to believe in the twin climate and energy crisisses. People can see it and feel it happening; $140/barrel oil, Russia embargos natural gas shipments to Europe, catastrophic drops in the level of water in California snowpack, accelerated melting of glaciers world wide, fear of both flooding of coastal cities and lack of water for irrigation of crops.
I'm not in the habit of posting links to sites because I'm fairly confident that folks will believe what they are going to believe and won't bother following up (unless they are genuinely objective), But I just want to throw this one out out there (same data can be found at several websites on either side of the discussion). It contains 3 graphs. The fist one everyone should be familiar with. The second is similar to the first but with a longer time span. The third I would like to hear rational comments about future sets of data points.
Any takers?
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
Global warming just makes sense. You pump trillion upon trillion of gallons of scorching hot gases into the atmoshphere, and it is bound to have an detrimental effect.
There's also probably good scientific evidence that can prove creationism over evolution.
I'll believe that the truth lies with evolution and global warming.
I have seen articles and experts blaming any and every problem on global warming but the solutions that are offered are a lower standard of living and higher taxes . . . weird.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg
Here’s Solar Activity vs. Temperature…..
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WATTSSOLAR1.jpg
Which fits better?
Solar Activity vs Temp?
Sorry but you should provide the entire link, so we all can READ what this is supossed to be
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg
Looks like temperatures are lower now than 20 years ago...... and CO2 levels have been rising the entire time.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541/nasa_admits_that_1934_not_1998_was.html?cat=58
At the recent conference on global warming in Poznan, Poland, more 600 scientists from around the globe challenged the man-made global warming claims. The dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of United Nations scientists (52) who authored the media hyped Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://current.com/items/89613636/650_scientists_deny_man_made_global_warming.htm
Additionally, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.pr-inside.com/the-petition-contains-the-signatures-of-r613239.htm
'(The) study was written in 1998 which was followed up by a petition apparently signed by over 31,000 ‘scientists’ to date. these 31,000 ‘scientists’ collectively argue against the idea that human activity is causing global warming. 31,000. sounds impressive eh?'
'read the news article covering the report and petition, here':
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
read the report: SCIENCE HAS SPOKEN: GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH, 1997:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
read the petition:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
'with a little research i discovered a few interesting facts about the report, petition, its authors and signatories, which i want to share…'
• yes, the report is 10 years old.
• more than half the people who signed it, did so 10 years ago.
• the scientific paper was deceptively formatted to look like an official document of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. it was not.
• of the original 17,000 signers, dr. robinson admitted only 2100 signatories were actually from climate science and it was discovered non-credential signatories existed: perry mason, MASH dr honeycutt and more…
• dr frederick seitz initiated the study; was also a paid consultant to RJ REYNOLD TOBACCO Co, from 1979.
• writer dr. arthur robinson nor any of the co-authors were climate scientists.
• dr. arthur robinson also does not believe in evolution. he believes in intelligent design.
sources:
http://antiguanoctane.gnn.tv/blogs/28821/31_000_scientists_eh
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ObamaCarbonBigfoot.pdf