Single Page
Scientists agree planet's warming, but do you believe them?Virtually 100 percent of full-time, actively publishing climate scientists agree the planet is warming up, with people playing a major role. A 2010 survey found that 90 percent of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world believe average global temperatures have risen over the past two centuries, and 82 percent agreed that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity have been a significant driver of the sizzle. Many other studies repeatedly demonstrate this same overwhelming consensus among researchers: There is no widespread scientific “debate” over the reality of global warming. Even one of the most outspoken scientific skeptics now agrees the planet has heated up. And yet, about half of all Americans don’t buy it. Influenced by what some call a “disinformation campaign” on the climate issue, 45 percent of Americans now believe that most scientists remain embroiled in a broad disagreement over the reality of global warming. Some 5 percent go further and think scientists actually deny climate change exists. And these doubters -- whose assumptions about the state of climate science are mostly false -- are much less open to public policies that might reduce greenhouse gas production or mitigate global warming, according to new paper in the journal Nature Climate Change. "Misunderstanding the extent of scientific agreement about climate change is important because it undermines people's certainty that climate change is happening, which in turn reduces their conviction that America should find ways to deal with the problem," said co-author Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, in this story about the project. "It is no accident that so many Americans misunderstand the widespread scientific agreement about human-caused climate change. A well-financed disinformation campaign deliberately created a myth about there being lack of agreement. The climate science community should take all reasonable measures to put this myth to rest." Such notions may have such staying power, partly, because the broad consensus over climate warming has never been unanimous. The original 2010 survey, for example, found that only 47 percent of petroleum geologists and 64 percent of professional meteorologists endorse the link between human activity and climate change -- compared with 97 percent of climate scientists. "The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said survey co-author Peter Doran, from the University of Illinois at Chicago, in this story about the survey. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomena." The authors of the new Nature paper say mainstream media have often fed the myth by featuring "dueling scientists" when covering the climate issues, presenting a "false balance ... inadvertently suggesting that the climate science community remained strongly divided."
Peer reviewed skeptic??? What's this from the press release? "Climate sensitivity to CO2 more limited than extreme projections CORVALLIS, Ore. – A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies – and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007." http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf BTW, I've got a "smoking hot" deal on some (mint condition) carbon credits. I take credit cards too. Even if every one in America, Canada, the UK stopped using fuel SOMEHOW it would do nothing to change the pace of global warming. China will not change nor will other countries, so it will just continue to progress whatever small percentage the human race is able to contribute to greenhouse gasses. More can be done to promote reforestation, more transforming options, and quite frankly reducing population growth will also help, but again only if it happens globally. The earth orbits the sun in an ellipse at times this orbital wobble results in the northern hemisphere being exposed to closer orbits to the sun then in other ranges of years. This contributes to warming trends every 60 years or so. Also the sun itself just underwent a massive magnetic pole shift which released a lot of energy this past few years. This happens in cycles as well but more in the 100s of years. So yes the last decade has been warmer then expected, but that trend is now reducing as the orbital path is moving away from its closest orbits to the sun and will continue to do so for another few decades. The real danger will be when we find the cycle returning to its closest orbits as by then it will be record temps again dwarfing the records from the 1960s and this last few years. Point is if we don't, the world will still correct itself given enough time. We as a species however will be drastically effected by this correction as we die off from unsustainable levels. Unless magically we evolve beyond the need to be on Earth that is. Though that is the flights of Sci Fantasy not reality. Point is energy is energy. Use it and develop new sources while you can. Don't, and the species dies out to a level it can sustain itself again. Indeed some 10,000 years ago or there bouts its said that Antarctica had no ice covering its land mass, yet the north was in an ice age. This is all part of the natural cycle of our planet and our solar system. What we do as a species will not ever be able to halt this, but we may be able to adapt to it. Or move on. either way its a good idea to take the science to the next level, but not for the reason these scientist claim. For such claims are only for short term frauds to extort money for flawed research or fraudulent endeavors that have no hope of making a useful resource. Until we work at a global level nothing will change the path we have made for our species. Nobody doubts that the planet is warming, and I think you all are being a bit Luddite in your refusal to "get" that point. Where we split paths is on the issue of what is CAUSING the warming. The Alaska Dispatch writers are all hook, line, and sinker for the "greenhouse gases" theory, even though the real source of the warming is evident and has nothing to do with gases of any kind. This entire solar system is warming, even the moon is warming, exactly in proportion to the distance of each planet or moon from the sun. NASA crunched the data and published it over three years ago. Even planets and moons that have no atmosphere are warming proportionally in response to greater amounts of solar radiation. Yes, it really is that simple. More solar radiation equals more heat, more heat means a warmer planet. Go figure. Unless you really think we can control how much solar radiation the sun produces by riding a bicycle to work, it's time to give it a rest. Specklefoot, can you post the NASA data link? Very interesting. But I wonder if the disappearing ozone (a gas) layer might have something to do with warming also? It is obvious in Alaska that the climate has been warming. Unfortunately for environmentalists, the warming clearly started 200 years ago. That is science. What is not science are computer models that predict the future. They are not science by definition, because there has never been a successful experiment on a computer model that predicts anything, much less global climate, 25 years in the future. To be science, it has to have testable hypothesis, and there just haven't been any tests of climate computer models. You didn't ask how many thought it was a problem. I understand the scientific method of drawing conclusions and disbelieve the poor brainwashed masses. News black out on climate change. There is the constant yapping of talking heads on Fox TV denying climatic change, the gagging of climatologists (weather forecasters) by media corp owners at NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX who daren't mention the words climate change, disrupted oceanic currents due to the warming that is causing the destructive and fatal weather extremes of tornadoes, floods, blizzards and on. Oh no, we are having another "La Nina" and all the other obfuscations of what is actually happening. No mention of islands flooding due to sea level rising. People losing their homes and lives. Starving because the land is flooded where they used to grow their food. Land that is close to sea water becoming salinated and unable to grow anything. It is so vast this blackout and misinformation campaign, it is almost incomprehensible that anyone would deny that there is something happening here. What it is isn't exactly clear. You better stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down. Buffalo Springfield said it back in the 60's. Listen up, listen to the land, the sea, the air, your heart. And, who or what do these esteemed science boffins work for? If they work for gov't, then they toe the company line. Same for academia if they want grants. Therefore, what relevance does the first sentence really have? Books of fiction are far better equipped to tell us the real truth than those evil scientists "boffins." It is the height of ignorance to think that 7 billion people would have nay affect on the planet's geology. Oh, yeah, and don't forget about the carbon emissions from both the stratocones and the spreading zone plate volcanoes. I don’t think there is any doubt the climate is changing. We know that it has changed in the past, so why should this time be different. Seldom are things different. Although it seems logical 7 billion people are the reason, we don’t know for certain is what is causing the change or by how much. But we do know for certain that in the past climate change was not caused by industrial activity because there wasn’t any. Chances are things going on with the sun were responsible in the past. In any situation in which the experts say “this time is different” it is good to see if your wallet is still where it should be. If you can follow the money usually it will be clear, science not excluded. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226.html?grcc=5dbf5c72237c7e670fa5d39211b051c0Z3&mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion "Climat change" is a liberal prophecy. Its wholesale destruction of the economy in the name of "environmentalism" which looks a lot like communism. And you wonder why no one believes in this junk science. The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising? Of course not. They have a profit motive, right? Yet, you failed to point out the MOST OBVIOUS profit motive amongst all the scientists in the survey: Climate Scientists. After all, if they planet isn't warming, these guys are not only out of a job, they're out of an entire career. As in, "Go back to school and pick a new major. We don't need Elevator Operators or Carriage Drivers anymore". Bogus. Of course the planet is warming. Except when it isn't. The planet cools and warms all the time. Alert the Neanderthals, they'll be shocked. I hadn't thought of the possibility that there's a secret climatologist cabal disseminating false global warming data to pay for their luxurious and extravagant lifestyle. The revelation of this conspiracy will rock the free world! Death to science!!!! The comments prove that propaganda works and ignorance thrives. Sure, and the sun will come up in the morning. What sort of propaganda and ignorance do you espouse? I guess I just don't fit in that convenient box. I have a very distinct dislike for religion that creeps outside of the doors of it's church and i am not a radio talk show listener or a fan of fox or fox news. Yet, i could be considered very conservative. I have a very healthy suspicion of all of the Left's propaganda including the global warming issue. There are just to many email's out there now that show that these so called scientists are engaged in trying to manage the truth regardless of the science. In fact it is so bad that their "believability factor" is near zero. I can look around and see that the climate is changing and that it has been changing for a very long time and since i can collect this information myself it is believable but as far as the outcome of these changes or the cause? The people who are trotting out their favorite theories have a very long history of associating themselves with what turned out to be "Junk Science". Why should anyone believe them now? Ok we have over the years as a better term reduced the amout of pollution humans produce, being from the rust belt can clearly remember. On my last trip to Pittsburgh Pa was impressed with the end results clean air and clean rivers, on the other hand was forced to leave my home town due to the lack of work after the steel and coal industry went overseas. After over 30 years the city still hasnt recovered. Oh, yes, please be informed that the Master Carbon Trader is Al Gore. When Venice, Italy is under 5 feet of water for a month, call me, I might believe then. Read other places in this AlaskaDispatch to read that record cold and record snow is hitting Fairbanks this very moment. Also, the Polar Bears that were supposed to be disappearing have multiplied from 5,000 to 20,000 in the last two decades. Misinforming and concealing counter arguments is the propaganda of the left wing media. Also, when we don't get snow, it is global warming, when we get too much snow it is caused by global warming.... When the Master Carbon trader buys a house on the seashore in San Diego, does he think the Oceans are going to rise rapidly and precipitously? B.S. Actively publishing Climate Scientists are paid to show temperature of earth is increasing and is caused by human activity. I would write what I am paid to write. That allows me to make a living and keep warm and eat. Pretty Simple. Pay climatolotists to show human activity is causing global cooling and they will write that, instead. That is why regular people think it is a "Big Lie". Obama said, "elect me and the price of energy will necessarily skyrocket." So, let’s see; the “actively publishing Climate Scientists are paid to show temperature [sic] of earth is increasing and is caused by human activity.” Well, we definitely know that the actively publishing Climate Scientists who deny that global warming is occurring, or that human activity is the primary factor in global warming, are all paid by the oil companies, the Koch brothers, etc., etc. So that must mean that the actively publishing Climate Scientists who agree that global warming is occurring and that human activity is the primary factor in that warming, must all be paid by the other side. And the “other side” must be, let’s see - oh yes! All those giant “green” conglomerates that produce all of those “green” products that help to reduce greenhouse gases??? Those “green” conglomerates are just trying to increase sales! And those companies would be ....??? Right!! For the most part, it appears that the climate warming deniers in the U.S. population are the same bunch who deny evolution and believe that the Earth is just 6,000 years old, i.e., the science-illiterate Flat-Earthers! At the rate that the Fox News-educated segment of the U.S. populace appears to be growing, we’re well on our way to becoming a Third-World country! Please stop exhaling CO2. Thank You! Ya see now, that's just about how all these arguments are fought. Simply classify those who disagree with you, or might belong to a group of people who could potentially disagree with you, as ignorant, nay, utterly stupid, and you can then dismiss them out of hand. Way to prove a point about why, perhaps, somewhere around half the US population doesn't "buy" climate change. They're just fed up with being labeled as worthless, ignorant, clueless bumpkins by people whose intellect and understanding of God, the universe and social change is far superior to their meager capacity for thought, reflection and rational decision making. A statistical study that was 82 percent certain would be considered DOUBTFUL. So 566 earth scientists--that is hundreds and hundreds of earth scientists--DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMANS. Munch on that hard cold fact, people. seems as though there are plenty of skeptics http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=22b0ae842d6bdf5b17b11757739f2b69&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201&expiration=1322431393&hwt=80b3480a04db1f6a6909b6a4ecf11263 I don't have a problem accepting that Earth is warming. I can even accept that human activity has contributed to some climate change. That's because I think it is a moot point. Earth's climate has always changed and will continue changing. We didn't get this far by living in an ideal world. Don't be a dinosaur; adapt! Simple climate warming has nothing to do with my motivation to lessen my carbon imprint. My not wanting to give money away does. The politics of climate change has become the politics of Kool Aid - either you drink it, all of it, and without question, or you don't. In no way does that mean that the science is wrong. What it might mean is that about half of all Americans don't "buy it" at least partly because about half of all Americans are not registered with the political party to which climate change is inextricably linked. Their reaction to the science can fairly easily be understood in the context of their reaction to the polar opposite of their politics. It is as you say a right/left issue with Republicans the most vociferous deniers. It is however no accident that Fox news and right wing talk radio is the primary source of information for the GOP. Many studies have shown Fox viewers to be the most disinformed when asked questions about current events nationally and on the world stage. It is intentional disinformation and it works to confuse the audience. Most recently a Fairleigh/Dickenson University study found that those who watch/listen/read no media are more informed than those who turn to right wing sources, in particular Fox, for their information. The propaganda spinners in the pay of International oil and coal corporations are using the same tactics of creating "controversey" where none actually exists on the effects of carbon fuel burning as the tobacco industry used to create doubt about the scientific studies showing links to lung disease and cancer from smoking/ingesting tobacco. How many "Joe Camels" and "Marlboro Men" died needlessly because the tobacco propagandists were able to confuse the American public enough that they kept on ingesting the poison? I suppose CNN and MSNBC are objective? Right? Talk about confusing the public. How come left wing liberal politicians aren't treated the same as conservatives? They're given a pass. What happened to the left's "civility"? Have you seen Obama pointing fingers and putting blame on conservatives when he can't muster liberal votes to pass his legislation? Turn the channel, bro. What does Al Gore think? My hero He recently bought a beach house in San Diego. He expects it to be underwater in less than 2 years. That is both in value and seawater wise. pheesiks? we dont need no stinkin pheesiks Since when is the truth of science determined by polling? You knock meteorologists as only knowing short term phenomenon, but do climatologists know atmospheric physics? I suspect very little. |
Comments