http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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.

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

This "crap" is understood by scientists.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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