Americans don’t agree about global warming
By Judy Lowe | 05.20.09
As I looked over the news release from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, detailing a new study that global warming is going to be twice as bad as previously predicted, I knew that anywhere from 30 to 49 percent of people reading or hearing the news were going to be doubtful about some or all of it.
The doubt won’t surprise any regular reader of this blog – where visitors often vigorously debate this issue. But how could I be reasonably confident of those specific numbers of doubters?
Because of a survey last fall from Yale and George Mason universities. It asked more than 2,000 Americans about their beliefs in global warming. Here’s a summary of what they found. (You can read the whole thing by clicking here.)
Fifty-one percent believe global warming is happening and is a serious problem:
– Eighteen percent of those surveyed “strongly support a variety of climate change policies, such as regulating CO2 as a pollutant,” says the survey’s summary.
– The other 33 percent aren’t taking many personal steps to save energy or reduce their carbon footprint, but do pay attention in purchasing decisions to which companies are taking steps to help slow climate change.
Both of these groups are more likely to identify themselves with the Democratic Party or as independents than as Republicans. They’re likely to trust climate information from scientists, environmental organizations, Al Gore, and President Obama.
At the other end of the spectrum:
– Seven percent of respondents (64 percent of them Republicans) said that they’re positive that global warming isn’t happening, so they don’t worry about it. They prefer media sources that reflect their own political point of view and distrust mainstream media.
– Eleven percent said they weren’t sure if global warming was a reality, but even if it were, it wouldn’t happen for a century. Fifty-six percent of these doubters are Republicans; 24 percent are independents. They trust friends and family as sources of information on climate change.
– Twelve percent don’t give global warming much thought and aren’t sure if its real or a threat to future generations. More (41 percent) are Democrats than Republicans (23 percent). They listen to friends and family to form views on global warming, but do trust scientists — and television weather reporters.
In the middle, kinda wavering, is a group the survey calls “the cautious.” Nineteen percent of those responding, these people think global warming may be real, but they could change their minds. They tend not to think much about the issue and believe that if anything happens, it won’t occur for at least 35 years.
One-third of the cautious identify themselves as Republican, and 32 percent say they’re Democrats. Eighteen percent are independent. For global warming information, they trust scientists, followed by family and friends and TV weather reporters.
“When we talk about ‘the American public’ and its views on global warming, that’s a misnomer,” says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Forestry & Environmental Science Project on Climate Change and a co-author of the report.. “There is no single American voice on this issue.”
<< New study: Less sea rise expected from possible Antarctic melt | MainComments
2. Mike McFadden | 05.20.09
Is it any wonder that Americans are displaying a lack of trust in science considering the decline in science education in this country? That and an increase in christian fundamentalism combine to retard the scientific abilities of the nation as a whole. At one point the United States was at the forefront of the science world but since we have devolved into a superstitious group of naysayers. Only increased education and assurances that religion stays out of schools (do you hear me Kansas) will help the United States regain the respect for science its citizens once had. With that we may see fewer debates on the existence of global warming and more debates on how to solve the problems of global warming.
3. Paul Coen | 05.20.09
I have been aware of Global Warming and Climate change possibilities for many years. But that is because I had actively sought reliable information even when it was not on most folks radar. It has only been recently that people have become aware of both the research and its implications. Therefore it does not surprise me that quite a few folks are not as concern about this issue primarily because of their lack of exposure to creditable information. However there will be always those who will be naysayers, you could say the earth was round and despite the facts they would disagree. But I believe we are moving toward a significant majority of opinion and desire for action as we are better educated as a nation to Global Warming and Climate Change!
4. Jacob | 05.20.09
This is the same scientific community that won the Cold War for us and made the United States a first rate economic superpower….and now that scientists are saying that carbon emissions are a threat to the global ecosystem we decide we’re not going to listen to them anymore?
5. Arno Arrak | 05.20.09
Look, ms. Lowe: whether global warming exists or not cannot be determined by polling - you must actually observe the globe. And after having observed it you must then make sense of the observations - that is what climate science is supposed to do. Unfortunately what passes for “climate science” today is a biased version distorted by the IPCC establishment that gives a totally wrong picture of what our climate is doing. Take the key observation that there was this “late twentieth century warming” in the eighties and nineties that is extrapolated by use of computer climate models that depend on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide to predict a climate catastrophe by the end of the century. But satellite measurements tell us that there was no such warming of any kind during that period. What they do show instead is a set of global climate oscillations in step with the El Nino - Southern Oscillation that swing about a mean temperature which did not change for twenty years. But IPCC computers nevertheless use phony warming from land-based measurements, distorted by the urban heat island effect, to produce phony output known in the trade as GIGO. Unfortunately this imaginary “scenario” is believed in and acted upon by governments. This is simply a fact, and no amount of polling or a “consensus by 2500 scientists” can change it. It follows that no carbon dioxide warming makes carbon policies like the Kyoto Protocol and that planned Copenhagen treaty totally nonsensical. While carbon dioxide warming is non-existent, there was warming of a different kind that started with the “El Nino that should not be there” in 1998 and continued three years later with the “twenty-first century high” - a cluster of warm years that came to an end in 2007. Carbon dioxide theory cannot explain the 1998 warm peak (probably cosmogenic), nor the twenty-first centuiry high, nor the cooling that started in 2007 and bottomed out in 2008. To get the science behind all these statements download my PDF from ICECAP.
6. Don Hawkins | 05.20.09
Let’s not forget about the problem itself. The next two years will show us more.
7. Jeff | 05.20.09
When we were told by scientists there was a threat to the ozone layer, we reacted as a planet, banning CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals. The changes we made then are having positive results now. Wow, we CAN make a difference. There was no powerful CFC lobby to confuse (lie about) the data, though chemical companies did protest at first.
When science told us that Earth is warming dramatically, we dug in our heels. There IS a a powerful fossil fuel industry. This industry ignored its own internal scientists who proclaimed the validity of climate projections and instead funded “think tanks” and foundations with what can only be called lies.
It seems that the “teach-the-controversy” mindset finds the most fertile ground in those who draw conclusions first and then find data to support that “conclusion”.
8. AntonioSosa | 05.20.09
Honest scientists say that man-made global warming is a scam.
No patriotic and informed American can support the global warming/cap and trade scam. Cap and trade is a huge tax on the poor and the middle class designed to give the powers of a dictator to Obama and to further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, etc.)
Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.
Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to “prevent global warming” remind us of primitive humans who believed that killing and sacrificing others would ensure them good weather. Human beings don’t have the power to control climate!
9. MikeinIdaho | 05.20.09
Wow! Really good comments. Personally, I communicate with neighbors who think that global warming is a scam. Then I quietly explain that global warming is not a proper term. It should actually be called tropospheric warming. Tropospheric warming has been validated by a wide number of historical trends including:
- Photos from the 1890s
- Satellite images from the 1960s through the present
- CO2 data from the 1900s through the present
- Decrease in polar ice cap area decreases
- Decrease in CO2 solubility in the large oceans
- Increase in the thickness in the troposphere
- Tidal records from the Vikings (1400s?)
- Plant species cessation/migration at/to higher elevations
I also explain that the internal combustion engine (ICE) (the current car/lawnmower engine we all use) more efficient as a heater than moving people around. I then ask them to imagine all of these ICEs were in the form of those little electric desk heaters we place in under our desk to keep our feet warm in the winter. Whe stacked together in the City of New York the heater would be approximately 2km x 2km x 1km running 24/7/365.25. This heat load doesn’t include heat trapping from CO2 and H2O (green house gases).
It may have been that similar warm periods existed in the past, but when the climate changed abruptly (say one human life span), civilizations crumbled. (Read “Climates of Hunger” by Bryson and Murray). What we are facing now is a collision between our un-precidented, self-centered consumption of energy with our increased access to information about our world and our history. With right thinking and right action, one will prove to overcome the other and adherants to superstition will eventually be swept aside and a new economy based upon our internconnectedness with the world will allow all to benefit.
10. bob | 05.20.09
If the current green policies are pushed forward it will not really matter. Of course I could be wrong and Iran, China, and North Korea are really nice governments that are just misunderstood and will take good care of us. We should take care of the planet but at what cost. Earth is constantly changing. Are we doing more harm than good by trying to stop natural changes. Surely we did not kill all the dinosaurs buy huddling around campfires.
11. Phred 14 | 05.20.09
Antonio makes some interesting leaps and generalizations.
He states, “Human beings don’t have the power to control climate!”
True. Human beings don’t the ability to control the climate, but we CAN influence it. We do influence. We made a big hole in the ozone layer. We influenced our atmosphere. We then took steps to mitigate that. Again, our actions influenced the atmosphere.
He states, “Honest scientists say that man-made global warming is a scam.”
The IGPP is make of a few thousand honest scientists. Scientists are by nature a conservative bunch, drawing conclusions only after gathering data. Before publishing, there is peer-review. Honesty is a hallmark of science. The skeptical “scientists” on the other hand are like those funded by the tobacco companies in the 1950s. The fossil fuel industry has sponsored “research” that is not verified or peer-reviewed. Rather than publish in reputable journals, this misinformation is disseminated on websites. THIS is not honest.
He says, “No patriotic and informed American can support the global warming/cap and trade scam.”
Wow, I’m saddened to learn I’m neither patriotic nor informed. Okay, I’m not really sad about that. I AM sad when folks make such sweeping statements. I’m guessing Antonio has not read the IPCC IV report. Read it. Let me know where it falters.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm
Rather than attack people and call names, please point out exactly where the science is at fault. When doing so, please use peer-reviewed research, research that has been through the gauntlet that reduces errors, that is self-correcting in light of new data.
Singer has done some interesting work, but he tends to bypass the peer-review process that ensures accuracy and is essentially a conservative process. He has been funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil companies. This again reminds me of the scientists who worked for the tobacco companies in the 1950’s who said, “Smoking is good for you.”
Our present predicament comes with its own assumptions and conditions. We operate an ever expanding military that serves to protect oil interests. We have bases in 106 countries, as I recall. We have inherent subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuel interests. This has cost us trillions. This also has lined the pockets of those who benefit from this and those who seek to maintain this paradigm. THIS is a huge subsidy.
Why not take that built-in subsidy and redirect it to making an America that is cleaner, an America that is more efficient, an America that sends fewer dollars to countries that don’t like us and who would like to hurt us, an America that uses those non-exported dollars to employ more of our neighbors, our family members. THIS is patriotic. Sending our $ overseas is not patriotic at all.
Changing this paradigm will, of course, be more than a burr under the saddle of those who would then have to share. Those presently behind the scenes will fund ‘research’ to confuse the matter, trying to maintain the status quo.
12. SolarFlares | 05.20.09
It’s a bunch of garbage. They can’t even accurately predict the weather for the next couple of days…let alone what it’s going to be like in 10, 20, 50, or 100 years from now! There are a lot of scientists that disagree that global warming is man-made…volcanoes alone spew out more CO2 annually than ALL of humanity combined. Speaking of which…CO2 is a gas that plants need in order to breathe in order to produce the O2 that we breathe…a vital gas that’s part of our life cycle is not a pollutant.
The only goals of global warming is to get you to buy new “green” products and to tax you to death. They tried the same thing in the 70’s by saying that the Earth was cooling.
And what’s with all of this talk that religion and fundamentalism is causing people not to believe scientific data? I’m religious and I also understand the importance of science…I prefer to believe natural science as opposed to political science however. For all who still think that man-made global warming and an essential gas (CO2) are destroying the Earth, I’d encourage you to turn off your TV’s and do some actual research.
13. eliza | 05.20.09
saying climate change is a hoax is akin to resisting the fact that the earth is not flat.
declaring global warming is a scam harkens back to an era when people believed that the sun revolved around the earth.
trouble is, neither of those two ignorant positions proposed a threat to the life of our host. planet earth.
allowing isms & asms & osms to cloud reality will only seal our fate as a species. doomed.
may the planet heal from our selfish wounding of it. & go on, the not quite spherical wonder that spins as it orbits around the sun.
14. Eve | 05.20.09
Yes, another environmentalist disaster, the banning of CFC’s to save the ozone layer. Only now, in the midst of a solar minimum, do we find that the ozone hole is bigger than it ever was. Strange, after we banned CFC’s and we can no longer repair our refrigerators. It was not CFC’s, it is the cosmic rays that abound in a solar mininum, the ones that cause all the clouds and the ones that cause the ozone hole. Thank you environmentalists. Have you ever gotten one right yet? Now they are pushing the cap and trade so that none of us will have heat and the planet is cooling. Thank you again environmentalists. The 100 Million people dead at your hands also thank you.
15. Mike Johnson | 05.21.09
Bob
I fully agree that the notion that we can “cap and trade” our way out of climate change is ridiculous. However, it is equally ridiculous to say “oh well, the earth is changing, I guess we better just sit down and see what happens.” The science of climate change is pretty clear what will happen (there is just this pesky question of when) and it isn’t pretty. I’m not talking about rising seas or devastating hurricanes (The Day After Tomorrow was complete **** btw) but subtle changes like persistent drought/ floods which dramatically cut down food supplies. We aren’t going to be destroyed by some direct natural force, but through our own panic, fear and violence brought on by famine.
Now I understand the disdain for political policies and BS, but it is pretty obvious that if we do not move to a carbon neutral power source (based on solar, wind, biomass, fusion, etc) we are going to screw ourselves over and hard. At the very least, do some research and support the technologies that could lead to energy independence (corn ethanol doesn’t count).
16. Clint Staley | 05.21.09
As an engineering professor, I’ve had occasion to work with computer simulations, and I’m skeptical of the research that demonstrates that the current warming trends are human-caused.
The problem with computer simulations of complex systems like climate is that they must of necessity include simplifying assumptions, and the choice of which assumptions to make is subtle and highly subject to judgment. If one is not very careful, one’s political biases can creep into the results, simply because it’s easy to adjust one’s assumptions so that the outcome is what you expect. This, combined with potential bias on the part of reviewers of papers and editors of journals, can, without any organized “plot” or intent, still result in published research that reflects the political biases of the scientific field, rather than objective truth. (And note, theoretical scientists on average tend to the liberal.)
I’m afraid that the computer simulations being used to justify important economic decisions have more of a “ouija board” element to them than their creators would like to admit. It may still be true that global warming is anthropogenic, but we should not assume that computer simulations that “prove” this are free from political bias.
17. stout77 | 05.21.09
You mean the same scientists that banned DDT and spread malaria throughout the undeveloped world? The same scientists that gave birth to the ethanol movement (a fad that lasted baout as long as parachute pants) that literally starved people in Africa? The same ones that told us for so many years that acid rain was going to kill us all? The same ones who can’t seem to make up their minds whether coffee and wine are good or bad for us? It’s funny to me that the left calls it fear mongering when there is actually a threat, like people flying planes into American buildings, but when the threat is implied by some computer model employed by scientists who make a living off of grants, it’s not. Go figure. Despite the left’s need to feel important (we’re trying to save the planet), this world could chew us up and spit us out at any moment without any help from man. Get over yourselves.
18. stout77 | 05.21.09
MikeinIdaho-
If I’m not mistaken, Vikings named Greenland because it was green. And they didn’t have nearly the number of SUVs that we drive around today.
19. wsxyz | 05.21.09
It is interesting that people usually see change as bad. Even if it is true that the Earth is warming, there is no way to predict in detail what effects that warming will have. It is entirely possible that a warmer climate would be beneficial to the majority of humanity.
20. Kubota Jushin | 05.21.09
I like how most people who do deny the fact of Global Warming tend to use sources that may be a teensy bit biased, or worse - stitching “facts” out of whole cloth. Seriously, banning DDT spread malaria in the underdeveloped world? Most “underdeveloped” countries didn’t have DDT to begin with. What happened was what always happens - urbanization and people becoming dense.
What’s even funnier is when people like stout77 erode their own points. “Ooh global warming isn’t a threat, because it’s all made up in a computer model employed by scientists who make a living off of grants.” Yeah, it’s called “doing their job”. You know, the scientists employed by the oil companies are doing the EXACT SAME THING, only from a different (extremely biased) perspective.
You do know that back in the day, plenty of “Doctors” recommended tobacco for its… um, health benefits? Same situation. You’re paid to do a job, you do it, and unfortunately, the scientists employed by the gas giants are paid to lie (or at the very least commit grievous harm against science and truth).
Even if we, as a race, do endure, it’s always better to err on the side of caution, rather than act to preserve big business and the economy.
21. G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan until ~1996 | 05.21.09
It’s good to see that the pernicious roles of the Neptunian and Saturnian enemy agents among us are being exposed. If all four gas giants gang up on us, we’re probably toast.
It is an error to imagine that fossil fuel industry is tenacious because it is subsidized. Were it net subsidized, that would make it easier to get rid of. It is hard to get rid of because it is *taxed*. Users of its products subsidize government; government kicks a small fraction of its petrodollar take back to the companies. It keeps the lion’s share. Nuclear energy is opposed by government because it cuts into this share. It has not received any government money for many years.
22. parallel | 05.21.09
The believers tiresomely tell us deniers of Global Warming are paid by oil companies, believe in creationism and think that the earth is flat. This because they haven’t been able to find convincing facts and arguments to prove their point scientifically. It would be simple if there was convincing evidence that CO2 had caused the warming. Most of the population is not sufficiently interested, nor technical enough to determine the truth, so poll numbers do not surprise me.
It started with Mann’s hockey stick. This wiped out the Medieval warming period and little ice age by using unreliable proxies and what has been dubbed “Mannumatics.” The record of global warming temperatures, by satellite, is not long enough yet and the ground temperature record is very suspect if you read Anthony Watt’s detailed analysis of >70% of the ground stations.
There is no proof of anything beyond the warming trend of about 0.6C/century that has been going on since the little ice age. Projections from computer models are not proof. Even the IPCC wrote that global warming could be greater or less than they showed, but it is a little late to find that qualifier on page 797.
Probably the best indicator of global temperature change is from the top 700 meters of the oceans. This indicates no temperature rise for the last 8 years. Lower atmospheric temperatures have not risen for 7 years either. Total sea ice from both the Arctic & Antarctic is near record levels. Where is all the supposed heat from increased CO2 hiding?
The best explanation I have seen is by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu who writes about Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A possible cause of global warming) and the Multi-decadal Oscillation (The recent halting of the warming.)
23. Penn | 05.21.09
Is it happening?
Did we cause it?
Is it bad?
Can we fix it?
Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?
I am certainly concerned, but unless we can answer a resounding, scientifically supported ‘Yes’ to all these questions, we should not spend one public dime on it.
24. DB | 05.21.09
Mike McFadden blames the skepticism of Global Warming on Christian conservatism and scientific ignorance. I like to blame my skepticism on remembering when this same scientific community was wringing its hands and trying to persuade us that we were in imminent danger of a new Ice Age if we didn’t change our ways. Global Warming is the new drug; something else for the science community to point to in order to get its grant $$. I’m not having any of it.
25. A Bearded, Liberal Scientist | 05.21.09
Curses, my ruse has been exposed! Were it not for these meddling 31,000 petition signatories - all of whom are respected professionals expressing evidence-based opinions in their field of expertise - the flow of sweet government-sponsored grant money could have continued forever! The Science Lobby has been foiled decisively by those who simply cannot be fooled by mere observable evidence, reproduceable experimentation, and public peer review! The Shadow Reign of Academia thus begins to crumble. No longer will our pipe-smoking, bepatched of tweeded elbow, turtlenecked cabal enjoy our limitless influence over public policy, nor our tacit control of the salt-of-the-earth, hardworking American taxpayer! Without grant funding - our life-giving nectar - we wither to nothing. We die…
26. T, GA | 05.21.09
We will know a lot more about where the climate is heading in a few short years. There is a lot of research that is now predicting multi-decades cooling trend. Even less is known about what is going on with the sun. The polar ice cap is showing something of a comeback from recent lows. All temperature monitoring sites show a stagnation, if not decline, in temperatures for the past decade. Yet all I ever hear about is that the EXACT OPPOSITE is happening….in the media that is. There is so much intellectual dishonesty surrounding climate change, it’s astounding. The more the climate doesn’t warm, the more shrill the cries become. I keep waiting for them to show me real evidence, and they keep showing me ‘models’ programmed to show it’s going to warm.
27. Rick in Canada | 05.21.09
Science isn’t settled by opinion polls.
I recently read a book called “The Deniers”. It had some interesting reading. I highly recommend it.
28. John | 05.21.09
I dont think the Bright Green Blog.. is the place for a balanced debate on this subject.. its the corner stone of what brings you all together.. I wont even bother to remind you of the facts.. After all your information is all true.. and ours is paid for by big oil.. Shame shame shame.. on the so called good people.
29. Andy822 | 05.21.09
Some people believe they know the answer to difficult questions like global warming in spite of conflicting and inconclusive scientific results. Specifically, results around the point of accelerated rate of warming being caused by human generated greenhouse gases.
And like many controversial issues, the most vocal are the people at the fringes of the argument. And like most fringe people, they could never be rationally convinced to accept the argument at the other end of the spectrum. All they know is that if you don’t agree with them, you are wrong.
And now politics has explained why each group of people are wrong, the democratic strategist say that democrats believe in global warming and republicans don’t and republican strategist say that democrats are trying to socialize the world and republicans are trying to save us from socialism.
My guess is that polar ice caps will have melted under the background rate of natural normal global warming (you know the non-human accelerated kind) long before the lunatic fringes agree.
Now I can’t sleep, anyone want to try and get the fringes to agree on gun control, abortion, tax the rich, religion, different religion or socialized medicine.
30. secretwave101 | 05.22.09
I’m willing to acknowledge that global warming is occurring. I have yet to see good scientific proof that this warming trend is a result of climate change or human behavior.
Why do the polls never seem to ask questions that tease out this nuanced view of the issue?
31. Mike Higgins | 05.22.09
Honest scientist Dr. Edward F Blick, Retired Prof of Engineering and Meteorology, Univ. of Oklahoma:
Waxman and the Dems are in a “full court press” to pass “Cap and Tax” in the next few days. They need to read the attached paper. It proves Global Warming is a Rotten Egg hatched by the UN, using Al Gore as their Joseph Goebbles. (if you tell a lie long enough and often enough, people start to believe it!)
Charts at the end of the paper, show that most of the high temperature records of all seven continents and Oceania were made before 1940! Between 1880 and 2000 the temperature in the U.S. rose about 0.3 deg. C. For this Waxman and his friends have got their “underwear in a wad” and want to waste trillions of dollars that will turn off the lights in America? Unbelievable!
32. Paul | 05.22.09
Eve said,
“Yes, another environmentalist disaster, the banning of CFC’s to save the ozone layer… Strange, after we banned CFC’s and we can no longer repair our refrigerators.”
There is nothing to stop the repair of refrigerators now they do not contain CFCs. The repair issue of any equipment is primarily down to the manufacturers and economics. Cheap goods result in reduced interest in repair. People would rather recycle/dump broken equipment because it is cheaper to buy new.
This is largely driven by design and manufacturing. Manufacturers want products to be less repairable and to last for a limited time, then you are more likely to go and buy another new product sooner.
The reduction in size of the Ozone hole will take a number of decades.
The cooling of the stratosphere due to increased CO2 will put back the repair of the hole.
33. Paul | 05.22.09
stout77 said:
“The same scientists that gave birth to the ethanol movement (a fad that lasted baout as long as parachute pants) that literally starved people in Africa? ”
That was a political decision be Bush et al.
Environmentalists world wide are largely against ethanol produced from corn etc.
stout77 said:
“The same ones that told us for so many years that acid rain was going to kill us all?”
To my knowledge it was never said acid rain would exactly kill us.
However i suggest you visit cities in Britain and look at the damage acid rain did to our buildings and monuments.
stout77 said:
“The same ones who can’t seem to make up their minds whether coffee and wine are good or bad for us? ”
The problem is really individuals that want specific answers because they don’t understand the issues or the science. Coffee is good and bad, wine is good and bad, humans are good and bad, water is good and bad, air is good and bad.
It is the context that determines whether these things polarise to either good or bad.
34. Paul | 05.22.09
stout77 said:
“If I’m not mistaken, Vikings named Greenland because it was green.”
Take your surname, trace it back 500 or more years and see if it means the same thing or is spelt the same back then as it does now.
My surname has evolved in 400 or so years, it is pretty stupid to take a name today and assume it was both spelt and meant the same thing hundreds or thousands of years ago.
35. Paul | 05.22.09
T, GA said:
“The polar ice cap is showing something of a comeback from recent lows. ”
We only have one???
I think this statement sums up the validity of the rest of your comment.
36. anon | 05.22.09
“declaring global warming is a scam harkens back to an era when people believed that the sun revolved around the earth.
trouble is, neither of those two ignorant positions proposed a threat to the life of our host. planet earth.
allowing isms & asms & osms to cloud reality will only seal our fate as a species. doomed.”
I was not aware that the “life” of the planet was threatened. Are you saying that all life on the planet is going to go extinct. I am also not aware of any credible person who claims that the human race will go extinct as a result of global warming.
37. anon | 05.22.09
Over the top claims with no credible basis (ie the human race is doomed) juxtaposed with vulgar insults against people who disagree is probably not the best way to persuade people.
38. Lester | 05.22.09
Wow, Solarflares…You must be an Expert to Predict that “global warming is a Hoax”. You state “turn off your TVs and do research”… Have you done any, sir?
To say Global Warming is false is Like the Impostor Scientists in the 1950s Paid by the Tobacco Industry that Said “Smoking was Good for You”. Internal Memos from Tobacco Companies have known for over 4-0 Years that Smoking is Bad for You.
Some Scientists from Oil Companies have also stated “Unequivocally that Fossil Fuel Consumption” increases Global Temperatures via Internal Memos.
But, they were Pressured to “SHUT UP” or they will be “FIRED AND CASTIGATED IN THEIR INDUSTRY”……….
ALSO, COMPANIES like CHEVRON OIL BOUGHT the LICENSING & PATENTS OF ELECTRIC BATTERIES FROM GENERAL MOTORS & OTHERS DECADES ago. THESE CORPORATE TITANS RUN THEIR INTERNAL OPERATIONS pretty much as Dictators.
NOW, WHO WOULD YOU Believe, Oil Companies WHO MAKE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS & REVENUES IN PROFITS, and Underpay Corporate TAXES or SCIENTISTS from Academic INSTITUTIONS, Non=Profits, and the LIKE…..JUST THINK WHEN OIL WAS at 4.50 PER GALLON….WHO WAS RAKING ALL THOSE $$.
39. Todd | 05.23.09
Even though individuals have no definitive proof that they are going to die within a year or that their house will burn down, they spend significant portions of their income on insurance. Even under very conservative scientific views there is a significant possibility of severe consequences. The percentage of societies economic output necessary to eliminate that risk is substantially less than the percentage that the average American spends on insurace.
Why do otherwise conservative people resist mitigating the risk of global warming when they happily spend greater percentages of their income to mitigate less probable and less harmful risks. It is similar to the people who ignored the risks of huricane Katrina even though the scientists predicted a substantial possibility of extreme harm. When there was still time for steps to be taken to protect the people of New Orleans, nothing was done because they doubted that the worst case scenarios could happen, since they were only 20 or 30% likely. The probablity cone of global warming is similar to the probabilty cone of a huricane. The best guess tells us that it will be like a category one causing substantial but harm that we will be able to deal with. However, there is a small lileihood that it could just fissle out and be a tropical storm. The prudent thing to do, is not to just keep waiting and hoping for the best, becasue isntead of a tropical storm would could get the global warming equivalent a category five huricane.
40. Mememine69 | 05.23.09
Concerning Mike McFadden’s Demonizing of Denialism:
I’m a denier. A doubting, non believer and glowbull warming atheist. I do not believe the world is coming to an end as the IPCC clearly predicts (try reading the 19 IPCC reports warmies) and yes our kids will have kids after all and this 5 billion year old planet will not be brought to it’s knees by it’s own plant food and SUV gas. I don’t wish for this misery as you cowardly fear mongering glowbull warm mongering zealots do. And if you haven’t noticed yet, there is a new generation of kids that are willing to fight back at your needless self serving panic. If you stop and think for a minute instead yelling “FIRE” in the theatre, you would agree that 23 years is long enough for this theory to have warned us of an impending climate crisis. If you pathetic warmies did love the planet, you would encourage everyone to be glad he smoggy 70’s are over, celebrate Rachel Carson not Al Bore, preserve instead save our planet with needless fear and face the future with bravery and not this embarrassing candyass hysteria you new WMDer’s love wallow in.
Newest data from NOAA shows 11 years of cooling for the USA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
January 1997 - 2009 Trend = -0.86 degF / Decade
January 1998 - 2009 Trend = -2.33 degF / Decade
January 1999 - 2009 Trend = -1.86 degF / Decade
January 2000 - 2009 Trend = -1.75 degF / Decade
January 2001 - 2009 Trend = -1.53 degF / Decade
January 2002 - 2009 Trend = -3.60 degF / Decade
January 2003 - 2009 Trend = -2.64 degF / Decade
January 2004 - 2009 Trend = -3.84 degF / Decade
January 2005 - 2009 Trend = -13.69 degF / Decade
January 2006 - 2009 Trend = -26.33 degF / Decade
January 2007 - 2009 Trend = -2.20 degF / Decade
41. ChrisMarks | 05.23.09
I would like to reply to Todd(post 39) because I thought he had an apt and useful analogy - insurance. Most prudent people do buy insurance. How much they buy however is based on two types of factors. First, the immediacy and clarity of the threat. Second, cost. As to the first, less than 1/2 of people in the US believe in the threat, let alone those in the developing countries of the world. Would you like to be in the life insurance business if less than 1/2 of the people believed they were going to die? As to the cost - if so many don’t believe in the threat how much are they going to be willing to pay to avoid it? How much am I (or most people) willing to pay to insure against a 20% chance of loss? Less than he would hope and that’s assuming his 20% estimate is the same as mine.
42. Paul | 05.24.09
Re: Mememine69
I suggest you learn how to practice science.
The decade trend figures are invalid for short periods. NOAA actually warn on their web site that their software (that you link to, but point to the wrong page, try this instead http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html) will not produce accurate charts for periods less than 8 years.
Which basically invalidates 9 of the figures you have posted.
The other point is that to get sensible decadal trends (which is what you have posted), you obviously need to have datasets that cover a number of decades in order to get valid results, otherwise you are plotting yearly trends over a decade.
Annual 1920 - 2008 Trend = 0.11 degF / Decade
Which is exactly what NOAA states is the decadel temperature increase.
43. Paul | 05.26.09
Solarflares said:
“It’s a bunch of garbage. They can’t even accurately predict the weather for the next couple of days…”
Yes, well. If we depended on your advice then D-Day would never have happened!
It is easier to predict climate than it is daily weather. Even so, D-Day depended on an accurate weather forecast.
Solarflares said:
“…let alone what it’s going to be like in 10, 20, 50, or 100 years from now!”
That would be because scientists are not trying to predict the weather in 10 years time, they are looking at climate.
Solarflares said:
“volcanoes alone spew out more CO2 annually than ALL of humanity combined. ”
Gerlach in 1991 pointed out that humans contribute about 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
Also eruptions actually contribute cooling by contributing aerosols to the atmosphere.
Solarflares said:
“Speaking of which…CO2 is a gas that plants need in order to breathe in order to produce the O2 that we breathe…a vital gas that’s part of our life cycle is not a pollutant.”
A bit amateurish, that statement. We know CO2 is important , as you state, carbon is part of a complex cycle.
In just a few decades we are adding carbon to today’s carbon cycle from a previous and very long period. We are releasing vast amounts of energy and carbon that took millions of years to store away by plants and animals.
Anything can be a pollutant
Solarflares said:
“The only goals of global warming is to get you to buy new “green” products and to tax you to death. They tried the same thing in the 70’s by saying that the Earth was cooling.”
Who exactly tried something and what were the products?
Something to look at:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
Solarflares said:
“And what’s with all of this talk that religion and fundamentalism is causing people not to believe scientific data? I’m religious…”
Exactly!
44. Mike McFadden | 05.27.09
Re: Mememine69
Nice logic. As they say “Sticks and stones…”
I love it when name-calling and horrible puns replace actual thought.
45. Jayr | 06.02.09
You all should find out about in the 1970s how scientists were convinced of global cooling.
Oh, not to mention the fact that the scientific field is not in agreement about global warming.
Want to reduce global warming?
Grow some trees, stop cutting so many down, and become a vegan. That would reduce more greenhouse gases than if humans emitted zero greenhouse gases other than breathing [that’s bad for the environment, too].
Do not call someone stupid for thinking unbiased.
46. rand | 06.08.09
Arguing about a name, is just an excuse to maintain an economy at the cost of a society. Call it what you will, but climate change is real and more than adequately documented. Ignoring a problem has never solved a thing, and never will. As for the fundamentalist and anti-science groups, perhaps an example they could more readily identify with would be that of Noah. As i recall he to was faced with many who disagreed, and look what happened to them. Yes i know that you’ll say that it was God who gave Noah the information in that case, but maybe this time he is waiting for us to use the powers of observation and intelligence with which he has blessed us, he does after all help those who help themselves. We had better work out exactly where we stand, because denying reality to prolong self seeking goals will only doom us all, weather you choose to believe or not. But then maybe that’s it, perhaps our blind self indulgence has reached that point where we no longer deserve to survive. What better way for God to wipe the slate clean and start again.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Guardian, USA Today, NYTimes, wires..: MIT study sees global warming’s pace even worse than we’d been told | Science News | 05.21.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Larrydalooza | 05.20.09
The margin of error is the percentage of people you could expect would be influenced by propaganda.