Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure

[Whitey44]

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309...cientists-sure

Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure

by Richard Harris



June 21, 2011

Listen to the Story

Morning Edition
[1 min 15 sec]

• Add to Playlist
• Download
• Transcript

text size AAA
June 21, 2011
The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities.
Something a bit strange is happening with public opinion and climate change.
Anthony Leiserowitz, who directs the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication, delved into this in a recent poll. He not only asked citizens what they thought of climate change, he also asked them to estimate how climate scientists feel about global warming.
"Only 13 percent of Americans got the correct answer, which is that in fact about 97 percent of American scientists say that climate change is happening, and about a third of Americans just simply say they don't know," he said.
Most Americans are unaware that the National Academy of Sciences, known for its cautious and even-handed reviews of the state of science, is firmly on board with climate change. It has been for years.

So far the evidence shows that the more people understand that there is this consensus, the more they tend to believe that climate change is happening, the more they understand that humans are a major contributor, and the more worried they are about it.


- Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication

Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy, paraphrased its most recent report on the subject.
"The consensus statement is that climate changes are being observed, are certainly real, they seem to be increasing, and that humans are mostly likely the cause of all or most of these changes," he said.
That's not just the view of the U.S. National Academies. There's also a consensus statement from the presidents of science academies from around the world, including the academies of China, the United Kingdom, India, Japan, Russia, France, Brazil, the list goes on.
Cicerone also points to strong statements about climate change from the leading professional organizations in the United States, including from the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society and others.
Of course, it's still possible to find a few scientists who reject the consensus. Cicerone says it is appealing to think they are right when they say there's no need to worry about complicated cap-and-trade policies or otherwise fuss about climate change.
"I think rooting for the underdog, the David against the Goliath, is something that we all do — I think it's particularly American, although it happens everywhere," he said. "And in fact, this is the way scientists work.
"Scientists don't gain respect, and attention, and fame, if you will, by going along with the mainstream, and I don't know of many scientists who try to go along with the mainstream — they're trying to go the opposite direction."
Though a few are still finding reasons for doubt, Cicerone says he and most of his colleagues find the science of climate change is stronger the harder they look. So does this public disbelief mean that Americans are becoming more anti-science?
Related NPR Stories

In 2012 GOP Race, Climate Policy Is A Non-Issue

Conservative voters' views of climate change have shifted in recent years.




Leiserowitz of Yale University says that's not what his polls show.
"Most Americans have overwhelming trust in the science and trust in scientists," he said.
But the public is largely unaware of the consensus because that's not what they're hearing on cable TV or reading in blogs.
"They mostly get exposed to a much more conflicted view, and that's of course not by accident," he said.
Leiserowitz is now starting to ask how public opinion changes when people actually know that the National Academy of Sciences and other groups consider climate change to be a big concern.
"So far the evidence shows that the more people understand that there is this consensus, the more they tend to believe that climate change is happening, the more they understand that humans are a major contributor, and the more worried they are about it," Leiserowitz said.
He says if you drill down a bit, the American public actually is not split when you ask them if they'd like to see a gradual transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.
"We find overwhelming bipartisan agreement about that," he said.
As it happens, that transition is a step toward slowing the pace of global climate change.

[Kimiko]

What we have here...is a blatant case of low-information people being intentionally confused and lied to by right-wing ideologues on Fox News and well-funded corporate shills enlisted to protect the profit margin. Climate change denial has become a conservative litmus test -- in order to be a good conservative these days, you have to disregard the facts and be hostile toward science, because, don't you know, it's all a liberal conspiracy cooked up by Al Gore.

[easttexasbadboy32]

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Quick, go buy an electric car full of lithium-ion batteries and create a smaller carbon footprint! Uh-oh, that turns out to be false. A hybrid or electric car actually causes MORE carbon emissions than a new efficient gas or diesel car in totality. That's counter-productive yet taxpayer subsidized and ignored by the "concerned" enviro scientists. They prove their selective acceptance of reality right there.
We know they bury data they don't like, black-list dissenting scientists, are dependent on believers for funding, and that ice cores show the climate has been cyclical forever.

Riddle me this: Imagine that we followed all their suggestions immediately and completely, what exactly would it buy us? We know the cost, and it's HUGE, but noone has defined the benefit outside of abstract theories based on other abstract theories...

[Krieg]

Originally Posted by easttexasbadboy32

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Quick, go buy an electric car full of lithium-ion batteries and create a smaller carbon footprint! Uh-oh, that turns out to be false. A hybrid or electric car actually causes MORE carbon emissions than a new efficient gas or diesel car in totality. That's counter-productive yet taxpayer subsidized and ignored by the "concerned" enviro scientists. They prove their selective acceptance of reality right there.
We know they bury data they don't like, black-list dissenting scientists, are dependent on believers for funding, and that ice cores show the climate has been cyclical forever.

Riddle me this: Imagine that we followed all their suggestions immediately and completely, what exactly would it buy us? We know the cost, and it's HUGE, but noone has defined the benefit outside of abstract theories based on other abstract theories...

And what of the environmental impact caused by industries to produce the gas for that new fuel efficient car?
There is the science out there to create alternatives to fossil fuel with much less environmental impact, but it's not cost efficient as it is to drill or steam the oil out.

Once again people are using the "economy" as an excuse to shit where they sleep.
"what would it buy us"? A prime example.

[easttexasbadboy32]

Originally Posted by Krieg

And what of the environmental impact caused by industries to produce the gas for that new fuel efficient car?

The same industries produce the fuel for the hybrid even if they use a little less daily. The energy consumed to refine and produce the CAUSTIC chemicals in the batteries, and the energy to recycle those batteries, is enormous. Then you have these envoromentally horrendous susbtances that you can't really deal with in a good way. In the end, that prius or volt causes more environmental damage than an efficient gas fiesta or elantra and it costs a huge sum more. Man, don't you hybrid drivers fee llike you've been duped by junk enviro claims yet?

Originally Posted by Kreig

There is the science out there to create alternatives to fossil fuel with much less environmental impact, but it's not cost efficient as it is to drill or steam the oil out.

Yes, but with current technology it is much like a pair of oars as a valid alternative to an engine ...on a 100k ton cargo ship.

Originally Posted by Kreig

Once again people are using the "economy" as an excuse to shit where they sleep. "what would it buy us"? A prime example.

I still wait on what the benefit is. Without knowing the benefit with some certainty, this is an extremely costly gamble ...and not just expensive financially.

[thikdik]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. BULLSHIT.

[easttexasbadboy32]

Originally Posted by thikdik

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. BULLSHIT.

I see we have another engaged intellect in our midst. Perhaps you got lost looking for gay porn, I'm sure you can find it in another forum on this site.

Follow stumbles, he'll show you the way...

[BigTrobbing]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

What we have here...is a blatant case of low-information people being intentionally confused and lied to by right-wing ideologues on Fox News and well-funded corporate shills enlisted to protect the profit margin. Climate change denial has become a conservative litmus test -- in order to be a good conservative these days, you have to disregard the facts and be hostile toward science, because, don't you know, it's all a liberal conspiracy cooked up by Al Gore.

And I supposed that progressives are the only ones that understand this crap???

Stop it already, This is just a way to redistribute the wealth. How about you ask all the people in hollywood give up all their money then maybe (but I doubt) we may give some.

Since you seem to want to tell people how to live how about we tell you how to live. You should give up your house and live in the forest in a box with no electric and no plumbing. Typical progressive. Keep to yourself and leave us alone.

[easttexasbadboy32]

bigtrobbing, liberals/progressives/socialists/communists can't leave us alone. Their ideology depends on spending other people's money...

[Lookn4awillin1]

I guess you only get flamed for not using the search button unless it's a thread about climate change. How original, the upteenth thread on the subject.

[easttexasbadboy32]

Originally Posted by Lookn4awillin1

How original, the upteenth thread on the subject.

Sad, isn't it? The "man-made climate change/man-can-stop climate change" cultists continue to push their dribble. We must continue to expose the big lie.

[TheNouZ]

Originally Posted by easttexasbadboy32

Sad, isn't it? The "man-made climate change/man-can-stop climate change" cultists continue to push their dribble. We must continue to expose the big lie.

If climate change is just a big lie, constantly being pushed by a massive cult amongst scientists, why do you keep bumping the topic up with nonsense?

[Kimiko]

See? There they go again, holding their hands over their ears, jumping up and down crying "NONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!" until they turn blue.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

What we have here...is a blatant case of low-information people being intentionally confused and lied to by right-wing ideologues on Fox News and well-funded corporate shills enlisted to protect the profit margin. Climate change denial has become a conservative litmus test -- in order to be a good conservative these days, you have to disregard the facts and be hostile toward science, because, don't you know, it's all a liberal conspiracy cooked up by Al Gore.

It also helps to believe that it is always a good idea, and the right time to cut taxes. If the economy is doing well we can afford to. If the economy is doing poorly we need to. Deficits don't matter, unless a Democrat is in the White House.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by thikdik

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. BULLSHIT.

With a line like that you should write campaign speeches for Republican politicians.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by easttexasbadboy32

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Quick, go buy an electric car full of lithium-ion batteries and create a smaller carbon footprint! Uh-oh, that turns out to be false. A hybrid or electric car actually causes MORE carbon emissions than a new efficient gas or diesel car in totality. That's counter-productive yet taxpayer subsidized and ignored by the "concerned" enviro scientists. They prove their selective acceptance of reality right there.
We know they bury data they don't like, black-list dissenting scientists, are dependent on believers for funding, and that ice cores show the climate has been cyclical forever.

Riddle me this: Imagine that we followed all their suggestions immediately and completely, what exactly would it buy us? We know the cost, and it's HUGE, but noone has defined the benefit outside of abstract theories based on other abstract theories...

You are missing one of the other great advantage of electric cars. They have the ability to make us less dependent on oil. Going out to buy an electric car is not an economical thing to do in the short run. But, it probably will be in another decade.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

And I supposed that progressives are the only ones that understand this crap???

This "crap" is understood by scientists.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by Lookn4awillin1

I guess you only get flamed for not using the search button unless it's a thread about climate change. How original, the upteenth thread on the subject.

There are so many different threads on this,by now, that there is no point to sticking to one thread. The subject is worth more discussion than "who has the largest penus in the world" or "do women prefer large penuses" whic.h have also come up many times.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by easttexasbadboy32

Sad, isn't it? The "man-made climate change/man-can-stop climate change" cultists continue to push their dribble. We must continue to expose the big lie.

If you were a scientist, you might just be able to do that, if it really was a big lie. I doubt you have a basic handle on thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, scientific measurement,or electromagnetics.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

See? There they go again, holding their hands over their ears, jumping up and down crying "NONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!" until they turn blue.

Science denial has been perfected to an art form by some people. They certainly are vocal about their ignorance.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by thikdik

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. BULLSHIT.

Thankyou for the intellectually stimulating rhetoric!

[thikdik]

Originally Posted by easttexasbadboy32

I see we have another engaged intellect in our midst. Perhaps you got lost looking for gay porn, I'm sure you can find it in another forum on this site.

Follow stumbles, he'll show you the way...

Hey EASTTEXASDICKSMOKER I'm more conservative,antibuckwheat Obama,against climate change bullshit then your queersteer Texas ass could ever be so STFU.

[easttexasbadboy32]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

You are missing one of the other great advantage of electric cars. They have the ability to make us less dependent on oil. Going out to buy an electric car is not an economical thing to do in the short run. But, it probably will be in another decade.

they make you, as a motorist, less dependent on oil ...assuming you can find a windmill to charge at. Still, the lifetime enviro impact of a hybrid, from manufacture to recycle, is larger than an efficient gas or diesel. Doesn't that fly in the face of those who truly are concerned with the environment?

The phrase 'penny wise but pound foolish' comes to mind...

[easttexasbadboy32]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

If you were a scientist, you might just be able to do that, if it really was a big lie. I doubt you have a basic handle on thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, scientific measurement,or electromagnetics.

In complex equations, small changes in variables can have a huge impact on the result. Dispute that?

The data used in their variables has been suspect, and later confirmed, to contain manipulated data. Dispute that?

1) These scientists are dependent on favorable policy to continue their grants (their income.)
2) Scientists who dissent are broiled/ejected/silenced and destroyed.

If nothing in there makes you question their integrity or motives then bummer, I can't help you. Just please make sure you understand the real cost of this idea, as in a dramatic decrease in available energy (constant brownouts, limitations on usage, etc) and skyrocketing prices of everything.

Very big cost for unknown, and perhaps zero, benefit. Of course, one will just claim that "it would have been worse if we didn't do X" like with the economy, based on similarly sketchy logic.

[CFH420]

Its just a scam so stupid liberals spend their money on more shit they dont need.

The earth has been warming since the dawn of time, anyone remember the fucking ice age?

Liberals will buy into it, as Al Gore flies a leer jet around and uses limos to go to his book signings, which consume more gas then we do, to preach about conserving. Irony at its best eh?

[Whitey44]

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2...ather-extremes

Get Used to New Weather Extremes

Yep, it's hot. And climate records—wettest, driest, warmest, coldest, snowiest, stormiest, fieriest—are falling all around the globe.
By Julia Whitty | Tue Jul. 19, 2011 3:09 PM PDT
Smoke from the Wallow Fire, as seen in Albuquerque, N.M. John Fowler [1]/Wikimedia
We're seeing records fall in all directions this year—wettest, driest, warmest, coldest, snowiest, stormiest, fieriest—across the globe. In the US alone, in the month of July alone, 1,079 total heat records have been broken or tied. That's 559 broken, 520 tied...so far. The map below, generated today at NOAA's US Records page [2], shows how records have fallen nationwide, including in Alaska and Hawaii.
NOAA [3]
In fact, every state except Delaware has broken heat records so far this month.
In Iowa yesterday, the heat index exceeded 130°F/54.4°C—an extremely rare occurrence in this part of the world. According to Jeff Masters, writing at his Wunderblog [4], the only place where a 130°F heat index is common is along the shores of the Red Sea in the Middle East.
Predicted heat index for July 22 (Friday). NOAA [5]
However, Delaware won't dodge the heat bullet much longer. Its own records will likely tumble hard later this week.
The image above shows the predicted maximum heat index (combined heat and humidity) for July 22. Parts of all but 3 states—Idaho, Oregon, and Washington—are predicted to exceed 100°F/37.7°C. Delaware—in scary yellow—is predicted to rise above 115°F/46.1°C.
Ricky Rood points out in his Weather Underground blog [6] that much of July's heat in the US is compounded by extremely high humidity. And much of the extreme humidity this year is fueled by the extreme floods and saturated soils still plaguing the Midwest.
Missouri River basin. The top image, acquired July 18, shows flooding. Compare this to the bottom image—acquired a year ago— which shows no flooding. MODIS Rapid Response Team, Goddard Space Flight Center [7]/NASA
Extreme humidity combined with extreme heat creates extreme consequences for human health. As Ricky Rood writes [6]:

Now if I was a public health official, and I was trying to understand how a warming planet might impact my life, then here is how I would think about it. First, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific are going to be warmer, and hence, there will be more humid air. This will mean, with regard to human health for the central U.S., heat waves will become more dangerous, without necessarily becoming hotter. It is also reasonable to expect heat waves will become more frequent and last longer, because those persistent, stuck high pressure systems are, in part, forced by the higher sea surface temperatures. If I am a public health official here is my algorithm—heat waves are already important to my life, and they are likely to get more dangerous, more frequent, and of longer duration.

In other parts of the country this year, the extreme heat is compounded by extreme drought—with extreme outcomes, including the haboob that struck Phoenix on July 5. The time lapse video is amazing.
From Christopher Burt's weatherhistorian blog [8]:

The drought in the south central and southeast of the United States reached epic proportions. Carlsbad, New Mexico, went 233 days with no measurable precipitation until a meager 0.01 inches fell on June 2nd and it has not rained again since (as of July 15th). Pecos, Texas, just received 0.02 inches of precipitation on July 14th, its first measurable amount since September 23, 2010 (293 consecutive dry days). Albuquerque, New Mexico, has only had 0.19 inches of precipitation since January 1st (as of July 15th). For the period of January through June, this year has so far been the driest on record (117 years) for the states of New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana.

Predicted heat index for July 22 (Friday). NOAA [3]
The above image shows the latest drought conditions in the US where "exceptional" drought is plaguing much of the south. The trend is worsening, as you can see in this 12-week animation [9].
Another way of looking at this map is to realize the dark red areas are places where crops are going to fail this year.
Fire map. Jacques Descloitres [10]/NASA. (Fire detection algorithm developed by Louis Giglio. Blue Marble background image created by Reto Stokli.)
Of course drought fuels wildfires too. Arizona and New Mexico both experienced their largest wildfires in history during June and July. In the image above, you can see the global fire situation between June 30 and July 9. As bad as the fires in the US, obviously, they're a whole lot worse elsewhere.
Las Conchas Fire. John Fowler [11]/Wikimedia

According to the National Interagency Fire Center [12], the number of wildfires in the US as of the beginning of July this year is 36,424...and counting. These wild lands blazes have burned 4.8 million acres. That's an average of 132 acres per fire—which, by the way, is the largest burned acreage ever recorded in the US during this time period.
Jesse Allen [10]/NASA (Using data provided by the AIRS science team at NASA/JPL.)
Where there's fire, there's carbon monoxide. The images above show high concentrations of carbon monoxide from Arizona's Wallow Fire [13] drifting across the US from June 3 to June 6. Highest concentrations are in dark red. As described by the Earth Observatory [14]:

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that damages human health [15] by limiting the flow of oxygen through the body. It is also a key ingredient in the production of harmful ground-level ozone and urban haze.

NOAA's HMS analysis [16]
Today's mega-smoke producers are found in eastern Manitoba and central Ontario. In the image above you can see the moderate-to-dense smoke plume crossing the border.
The US Air Quality Smog Blog. [17]
And where there's smoke, there's particulate. You can see above how Canada's wildfires are driving today's poor air quality (yellow dots) in the Great Lakes region.
Thick smoke from drought- and heat-ravaged Canada streams south towards US. Wildfires outlined in red. Jeff Schmaltz [18]/MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC
Alone, heat, humidity, and smoke are lethal. Combined, they're a juggernaut. In Russia last year, a combination of extreme heat and extreme smoke from wildfires killed an estimated 56,000 [19] people.







Source URL: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/07/new-weather-extremes
Links:
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...oke_in_ABQ.jpg
[2] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/re...2011/07/00?sts
[3] http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/heat_index_MAX.shtml
[4] http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?entrynum=1850
[5] http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/heat_index_MAX.stml
[6] http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Ric...l?entrynum=200
[7] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Nat...w.php?id=51388
[8] http://www.wunderground.com/blog/wea...ml?entrynum=32
[9] http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/12_week.gif
[10] http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/firemaps
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Las_Conchas_Fire.jpg
[12] http://www.nifc.gov/fire_info/nfn.htm
[13] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Nat...t.php?id=50872
[14] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Nat...w.php?id=50934
[15] http://www.epa.gov/airquality/carbon...de/health.html
[16] http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/land/currenthms.jpg
[17] http://alg.umbc.edu/usaq/
[18] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Nat...w.php?id=51224
[19] http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Na...surer_999.html

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

What we have here...is a blatant case of low-information people being intentionally confused and lied to by right-wing ideologues on Fox News and well-funded corporate shills enlisted to protect the profit margin. Climate change denial has become a conservative litmus test -- in order to be a good conservative these days, you have to disregard the facts and be hostile toward science, because, don't you know, it's all a liberal conspiracy cooked up by Al Gore.

Most of those low information people believe in the literal truth of the Genesis Creation Story. Many think the Rapture will happen any day now, so the temperature of the earth a century from now will not matter.

Now I'm a Christian myself, but I think God wants us to be good stewards of the earth. When and if Jesus comes again He does not want to come to a polluted planet with the Holy Lands under water.

[Whitey44]

May 25, 2011
Ho Hum, More Scientific Data, Another Nail in the Global Warming Denial Coffin

I’m not looking at the record setting tornado stats of this year for April; or record flooding along the Mississippi, and in Australia and Pakistan; or record droughts in the southwest USA with record fires across America; or the record weather caused crop failures in Russia, Queensland, France, Germany and Texas; or the record number of records. Records are broken all the time, and of course we can’t link any specific event above to the slow process of Global Warming. We do note that all of these events are consistent with what the climate models have been predicting as a result of fossil fuel increased CO2.
The nail I refer to is the little note from NSF about a study that has been going on for 11-years of observing 13-species of common Mid-Western plant species, where the plants are exposed to higher CO2 levels as in GW. The results suggest that plants’ capacity to absorb extra carbon from the atmosphere as CO2 levels rise may be less than expected. This indicates that the carbon cycle model in climate models overpredict plant CO2 absorption, hence underpredict CO2 levels and consequently: “What this all boils down to,” says Reich, “is that the world could warm even faster than we thought.”
The findings are published in the current issue of the journal Global Change Biology by Tali Lee, Susan Barrott & Peter Reich.
We’re all looking for that piece of data that shows that the globe is not warming. But as I comb the scientific literature, it does seem that the pile of Global Warming compatible events is constantly getting taller while the global warming cooling or stable observations are sparse, or even absent.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Most of those low information people believe in the literal truth of the Genesis Creation Story. Many think the Rapture will happen any day now, so the temperature of the earth a century from now will not matter.

Now I'm a Christian myself, but I think God wants us to be good stewards of the earth. When and if Jesus comes again He does not want to come to a polluted planet with the Holy Lands under water.

I agree with you.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

May 25, 2011
Ho Hum, More Scientific Data, Another Nail in the Global Warming Denial Coffin

I’m not looking at the record setting tornado stats of this year for April; or record flooding along the Mississippi, and in Australia and Pakistan; or record droughts in the southwest USA with record fires across America; or the record weather caused crop failures in Russia, Queensland, France, Germany and Texas; or the record number of records. Records are broken all the time, and of course we can’t link any specific event above to the slow process of Global Warming. We do note that all of these events are consistent with what the climate models have been predicting as a result of fossil fuel increased CO2.
The nail I refer to is the little note from NSF about a study that has been going on for 11-years of observing 13-species of common Mid-Western plant species, where the plants are exposed to higher CO2 levels as in GW. The results suggest that plants’ capacity to absorb extra carbon from the atmosphere as CO2 levels rise may be less than expected. This indicates that the carbon cycle model in climate models overpredict plant CO2 absorption, hence underpredict CO2 levels and consequently: “What this all boils down to,” says Reich, “is that the world could warm even faster than we thought.”
The findings are published in the current issue of the journal Global Change Biology by Tali Lee, Susan Barrott & Peter Reich.
We’re all looking for that piece of data that shows that the globe is not warming. But as I comb the scientific literature, it does seem that the pile of Global Warming compatible events is constantly getting taller while the global warming cooling or stable observations are sparse, or even absent.

Good morning Whitey, still fighting the good fight I see. Think your making any progress along that front?

From the BBC

Climate sceptics get too much air-time, BBC told

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Thursday, 21 July 2011

.
Climate sceptics who do not believe that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are contributing to global warming have had too much air-time on the BBC as a result of its public broadcasting remit to be impartial, an inquiry has found.
Inaccurate statements from those who challenge the scientific consensus on a range of subjects had frequently gone unquestioned in the BBC's attempts to be even-handed.
Professor Steve Jones, who reviewed the broadcaster's science coverage at the request of the BBC Trust, said: "When faced with strongly opposed views in a scientific discussion, a journalist may not be certain of the facts presented on each side and may apply balance while describing it as impartiality – but if one proponent is presenting dubious evidence that claim is not justified.
"For at least three years, the climate change deniers have been marginal to the scientific debate, but somehow they continued to find a place on the airwaves."

[Prurient Purveyer]

Well what about Greenland. It isn't overly green,,is it?

Pretty damned cold really and if that sheet of ice melts we'll all nee snorkels to breath.

Google Vikings and Greenland. It used to be green, grass grew there, beasts of the field grazed, crops were harvested.

So now we are looking at global warming that falls far short of that and we are supposed to be worried.

For Christ's sake, why?

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Prurient Purveyer

Well what about Greenland. It isn't overly green,,is it?

Pretty damned cold really and if that sheet of ice melts we'll all nee snorkels to breath.

Google Vikings and Greenland. It used to be green, grass grew there, beasts of the field grazed, crops were harvested.

So now we are looking at global warming that falls far short of that and we are supposed to be worried.

For Christ's sake, why?

When it was "green", it was green on the coast near the southern tip. The ice sheet had not melted. When it HAS melted (the last time was some 110,000 years ago, long before the arrival of human beings), global sea level was at least 23 feet higher than today.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

When it was "green", it was green on the coast near the southern tip. The ice sheet had not melted. When it HAS melted (the last time was some 110,000 years ago, long before the arrival of human beings), global sea level was at least 23 feet higher than today.

According to what I've read, the Greenland ice sheet could melt entirely in a few hundred years, which indeed could cause a rise in sea levels of some 20+ feet. And further that this warming trend is for the most part irreversible, the best we can do is to slow it some, but if we do nothing it will likely accelerate.

So as I pointed out in a thread almost two years ago, shouldn't the politicians and such, be at work on a plan to move coastal population centers?

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

According to what I've read, the Greenland ice sheet could melt entirely in a few hundred years, which indeed could cause a rise in sea levels of some 20+ feet. And further that this warming trend is for the most part irreversible, the best we can do is to slow it some, but if we do nothing it will likely accelerate.

So as I pointed out in a thread almost two years ago, shouldn't the politicians and such, be at work on a plan to move coastal population centers?

Probably so, but it isn't likely to happen as long as powerful interests continue to argue that the whole thing is a hoax.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Probably so, but it isn't likely to happen as long as powerful interests continue to argue that the whole thing is a hoax.

Who are the powerful interests? Less than 30% of the population?

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Who are the powerful interests? Less than 30% of the population?

And you think that's what matters? They're the 30% with most of the money to influence politicians with. They're the 30% who control the media.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

And you think that's what matters? They're the 30% with most of the money to influence politicians with. They're the 30% who control the media.

Whoa, are you now claiming that the media is biased against the climate change proponents?

The article that I linked earlier didn't say that, it did say that the whole idea of presenting balanced news is more difficult when the subject is boring science.

Face it the communications to the lay person have been horrible, egotistical scientists can not possibly communicate with the average Joe.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Whoa, are you now claiming that the media is biased against the climate change proponents?

I absolutely do think that. But the way it manifests itself is fairly subtle. Instead of doing real fact-checking, for example, the media is more likely to simply allow both sides to present their case, treating them as if they were equally legitimate. It's as if Newton were put on a panel discussion with someone arguing that gravity doesn't exist, with the two given equal time. It may be more laziness on the part of the media than bias, but I have little trust in the corporate-owned news media to aggressively pursue the truth about global warming.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I absolutely do think that. But the way it manifests itself is fairly subtle. Instead of doing real fact-checking, for example, the media is more likely to simply allow both sides to present their case, treating them as if they were equally legitimate. It's as if Newton were put on a panel discussion with someone arguing that gravity doesn't exist, with the two given equal time. It may be more laziness on the part of the media than bias, but I have little trust in the corporate-owned news media to aggressively pursue the truth about global warming.

So you think the news media should be biased to your way? To my knowledge news media are supposed to report what made news, not to take one side of an issue and only report on it.

On the subject of news media actually doing what you say they should, tell me how many news medias documentaries on climate change have been made that supported the skeptics? How about those supporting the advocates?

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

So you think the news media should be biased to your way? To my knowledge news media are supposed to report what made news, not to take one side of an issue and only report on it.

The news media should be biased toward the facts. If 1,000 climate scientists conclude that global warming is happening and is caused primarily by human activity, and one scientist being paid by Exxon says it's not, should the media give equal time to both sides?

The news media has given far more attention to the climate change deniers than they deserve on the merits.

[UKlad]

Wether the climate is changing or not we still need to develope cost efficent renewable energy technology.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

What we have here...is a blatant case of low-information people being intentionally confused and lied to by right-wing ideologues on Fox News and well-funded corporate shills enlisted to protect the profit margin. Climate change denial has become a conservative litmus test -- in order to be a good conservative these days, you have to disregard the facts and be hostile toward science, because, don't you know, it's all a liberal conspiracy cooked up by Al Gore.

And there is a perfect example of that going on right now. I read an article yesterday that counted and illustrated how many times Fox News mocked Global warming/Climate change during snow storms last winter even though last winter was actually one of the warmest on record and 2001 to 2010 was one of the hottest on record.

But now that the US is locked in a heat wave that has already claimed 22 lives and is setting new records suddenly Fox doesn't report on the weather anymore.

[deviousdave]

Global warming is a very real issue. The problem lies on both of the political sides.

Many right wingers deny the existance of global warming because they are being ill informed by big conservative media corporations, and many liberals think they are saving the world with their hybrid cars and smug attitudes and don't realise the damage they themselves are causing.

For instance owning a family dog is more damaging to the environment than owning a hummer. This is based on the CO2 emissions just to supply the food for the dog. People don't realise the damage cattle farming does.

Hybrid cars so far do not do better miles per gallon than many small engined cars, let alone the damage from transporting the parts around the world, the mining of raw materials, including lithium for the batteries.

If you really want to buy a car that is saving the planet, buy second hand, as it is the production of the vehical that is the most damaging. If you want good gas mileage, that comes down to how you drive. You may not get the cheaper road tax, or saving the planet smug status, but you are doing better than some twat in a Prius.

Try and cut down on your electricity usage, but there is no need to put a wind farm in your garden.

Don't have more than 2 children, the future world resources cannot cope. (think how much damage owning a dog does, then compare it to something that lives 7 times as long, flies round the world on holidays, eats more food, and consumes more power.)

Get the kids you have now interested in science. They are the future, they will be the engineers that build the first nuclear fusion power plant. Providing safe, clean electricity from an almost unlimited fuel supply, with all the waste being short lived, and not dangerous.

Be smart.

[AZRIEL]

doubty.jpg

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

The news media should be biased toward the facts. If 1,000 climate scientists conclude that global warming is happening and is caused primarily by human activity, and one scientist being paid by Exxon says it's not, should the media give equal time to both sides?

The news media has given far more attention to the climate change deniers than they deserve on the merits.

In your opinion.

There are one hell of a lot more than one scientist claiming that the facts are not being presented properly, you seem to be an "either or" type. Lots of credible scientists dispute the claim that human's are soley responsible for climate change.

Even our resident climate scientist says that it is not so. So now we have a bunch of alarmists running around screaming: "the sky is falling", while some more rational folks are saying: "hang on a minute".

And you wonder why the, far to the denier, side skeptics get traction, news media reports what get the people to watch, so advertisers will pay, they don't make money on public service announcements.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

In your opinion.

There are one hell of a lot more than one scientist claiming that the facts are not being presented properly, you seem to be an "either or" type. Lots of credible scientists dispute the claim that human's are soley responsible for climate change.

Even our resident climate scientist says that it is not so. So now we have a bunch of alarmists running around screaming: "the sky is falling", while some more rational folks are saying: "hang on a minute".

And you wonder why the, far to the denier, side skeptics get traction, news media reports what get the people to watch, so advertisers will pay, they don't make money on public service announcements.

Typical straw man, tenguy. Nobody claimed that humans are SOLELY responsible for climate change. But the deniers are arguing either that it isn't happening at all, that humans are NOT responsible for it, or that it's a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore and an unholy alliance of corrupt scientists. Which side is credible?

[McDick]

It appears that the whole "global Warming" hysteria has peaked and is now on a decline. They'll have to come up with a better hoax next time.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Typical straw man, tenguy. Nobody claimed that humans are SOLELY responsible for climate change. But the deniers are arguing either that it isn't happening at all, that humans are NOT responsible for it, or that it's a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore and an unholy alliance of corrupt scientists. Which side is credible?

You missed the intent of my post, from the perspective of many, "you" (they) are claiming that it is all man's fault.

While the other "they" (some climate scientists) are saying it's a combination, accelerated by man's actions, which the deniers hear as man has nothing to do with it.

So while this is all going on the News Media is selling ads.

[tommyturtle]

I admit that the climate (weather) changes. It got to almost 100 F today. Last winter there were days where it got down to -10 F. Now I realize that today's weather and climate are not the same thing. But the climate gets warmer for a few years than it gets cooler for a few years. When I was in high school in the 70's we were being warned of an upcoming ice age. I must not have been paying attention when that happened. Did someone decide that we were getting bored so they changed the story?

Near the end of my high school career something was installed on cars that was supposed to stop smog, the catalytic converter. Now the tell us that the gas the converter exhausts, carbon dioxide, is causing global warming.

I have a crazy idea...if half of us remove our catalytic converters we can stop climate change. Hmm...that idea doesn't sound as crazy as some that I have heard.

[McDick]

The mistake the global warmer's made was to propose the "cap & tax" scheme. When they did that the Democrats immediately latched onto the idea and the Republicans opposed it. From there it degenerated into just another political issue with politicians advocating it.

They then began to lose middle America who saw it as a poorly disguised effort to send more tax dollars to Washington D.C.. As if sending more tax dollars to D.C. would somehow help cool the planet off.