Huge Decline in belief in Man Made Global Warming

[lars]

New Pew Research Surveys report that Americans are quickly catching on to the man made global warming (er 'climate change') marketing machine.

Only 36% of Americans believe that global warming is caused by humans..this is DOWN from 47% (in 2008)

and

57% of Americans still believe that there is solid evidence that global warming is warming the world..DOWN from 71% in 2008.


Looks like most people are figuring this out that warming is probably not man-made. Meanwhile, Al Gore's marketing machine is back in full swing with cover page articles in Newsweek and pushing to pass new legislation that will make him a billionaire.

[GreenSpartan]

Public opinion is irrelevant to the quality of the science.




You're talking about a public where 45% are essentially young earth creationists. A public where less than a third can identify DNA as the mechanism of heredity and 20% think the sun revolves around the earth. I'm sure Cym has a lot more examples at his fingertips.

Given those data, it is any wonder that a 20 yr PR campaign funded with millions and millions of dollars has been very successful? I'm not surprised one iota.

[Booyah]

Doesn't change the science. So you want to brag about how ignorant Americans are?

[Vlad_the_Impaler]

Originally Posted by Booyah

Doesn't change the science. So you want to brag about how ignorant Americans are?

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

Public opinion is irrelevant to the quality of the science.




You're talking about a public where 45% are essentially young earth creationists. A public where less than a third can identify DNA as the mechanism of heredity and 20% think the sun revolves around the earth. I'm sure Cym has a lot more examples at his fingertips.

Given those data, it is any wonder that a 20 yr PR campaign funded with millions and millions of dollars has been very successful? I'm not surprised one iota.

It's funny that people aren't buying the science. I guess it's all that crazy common sense stuff where stupid hicks go outside and see it's been a lot colder. Their kids come home from 2nd grade science class and the little brats explain to mom and dad that they exhale CO2 when they breathe and plants use the CO2 to make oxygen, and they wonder why CO2 is considered pollution? Stupid public.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

Public opinion is irrelevant to the quality of the science.




You're talking about a public where 45% are essentially young earth creationists. A public where less than a third can identify DNA as the mechanism of heredity and 20% think the sun revolves around the earth. I'm sure Cym has a lot more examples at his fingertips.

Given those data, it is any wonder that a 20 yr PR campaign funded with millions and millions of dollars has been very successful? I'm not surprised one iota.

Come on......can you at least try to back up the Young Earth numbers?

And if we're talking 20 year PR campaigns let's talk about the Green multi BILLION dollar one.

[TheGhettoHeisman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Come on......can you at least try to back up the Young Earth numbers?

And if we're talking 20 year PR campaigns let's talk about the Green multi BILLION dollar one.

I llke how you question the veracity of Green's stats yet you don't offer any sort on proof for your "multi-billion dollar" claim.

Science and Nature

[WixomSpartan]

Originally Posted by lars

New Pew Research Surveys report that Americans are quickly catching on to the man made global warming (er 'climate change') marketing machine.

Only 36% of Americans believe that global warming is caused by humans..this is DOWN from 47% (in 2008)

and

57% of Americans still believe that there is solid evidence that global warming is warming the world..DOWN from 71% in 2008.


Looks like most people are figuring this out that warming is probably not man-made. Meanwhile, Al Gore's marketing machine is back in full swing with cover page articles in Newsweek and pushing to pass new legislation that will make him a billionaire.

Those people all watch Fox News

[lars]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

Public opinion is irrelevant to the quality of the science.




You're talking about a public where 45% are essentially young earth creationists. A public where less than a third can identify DNA as the mechanism of heredity and 20% think the sun revolves around the earth. I'm sure Cym has a lot more examples at his fingertips.

Given those data, it is any wonder that a 20 yr PR campaign funded with millions and millions of dollars has been very successful? I'm not surprised one iota.

Clearly the science is far from conclusive. Besides that you can't get anything accomplished from a govt stand-point unless the public supports it. So unless you believe that science is the only thing that counts..it really doesn't matter what science says unless you have public support to get policies enacted. At this rate the public opinion that 'doesn't matter' is moving farther and farther away from agreeing that anything should be done.

From a very practical stand-point public opinion counts more than anything else..Green you should understand this.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by lars

Clearly the science is far from conclusive.

You are wrong.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by TheGhettoHeisman

I llke how you question the veracity of Green's stats yet you don't offer any sort on proof for your "multi-billion dollar" claim.

Science and Nature

Climate Research News » $79 Billion Spent and Counting: Still No Proof of AGW

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

You are wrong.

No he is not wrong at all. Why can't scientists figure out why CO2 increase lags temperature increases? Isn't that the opposite of what global warming theory speculates?

[Enrico Palazzo]

the denial crowd is likely the same folks who believed Saddam was the mastermind of 9/11 (70% of Faux Viewers), the same crowd who believe President Obama is a Muslim and born outside the US, and, of course, have bought into the creationism propaganda despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary:

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

and evidence shows that the less educated believe in evolution - the lower the education, the less likely to believe reality:

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

There is a strong relationship between education and belief in Darwin's theory, as might be expected, ranging from 21% of those with high-school educations or less to 74% of those with postgraduate degrees.

Those with high-school educations or less are much more likely to have no opinion than are those who have more formal education. Still, among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it. For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief.

[Compound]

Sounds to me like the majority is finally figuring out what the "crazy" people have been saying for years.

Anyone who really looks into "climate change" will quickly find out that what Al Gore and his cronies at the UN are claiming is dubious at best.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Enrico Palazzo

the denial crowd is likely the same folks who believed Saddam was the mastermind of 9/11 (70% of Faux Viewers), the same crowd who believe President Obama is a Muslim and born outside the US, and, of course, have bought into the creationism propaganda despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary:

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

Gracias on the Gallup numbers

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by Enrico Palazzo

the denial crowd is likely the same folks who believed Saddam was the mastermind of 9/11 (70% of Faux Viewers), the same crowd who believe President Obama is a Muslim and born outside the US, and, of course, have bought into the creationism propaganda despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary:

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

and evidence shows that the less educated believe in evolution - the lower the education, the less likely to believe reality:

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

There is a strong relationship between education and belief in Darwin's theory, as might be expected, ranging from 21% of those with high-school educations or less to 74% of those with postgraduate degrees.

Those with high-school educations or less are much more likely to have no opinion than are those who have more formal education. Still, among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it. For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief.

So your using peoples' religious beliefs to defend global warming? hmmm, irony.

[Sawtooth Spartan]

Originally Posted by lars

Clearly the science is far from conclusive. Besides that you can't get anything accomplished from a govt stand-point unless the public supports it. So unless you believe that science is the only thing that counts..it really doesn't matter what science says unless you have public support to get policies enacted. At this rate the public opinion that 'doesn't matter' is moving farther and farther away from agreeing that anything should be done.

From a very practical stand-point public opinion counts more than anything else..Green you should understand this.

Actually, you have a fair point here, though I do think the science is pretty conclusive. The folks who are concerned about what climate change will bring rightfully rely on science, but people need to see the impacts on the ground to be persuaded.

For me, it's stuff like this:
* I spend three weeks in Alaska among Native folks who are seeing animals their storied peoples have no names for, and the tree line moving farther north.
* Smallmouth bass -- a warm-water fish -- are moving farther upstream in the Yellowstone River, a world-renowned trout stream. Yeah, insert your bass-boat joke here, but I can tell you the many people who make a living off folks who come here to Montana to fly-fish are concerned. Oh, and bass are being seen in the lower reaches of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River for the first time.
* People in the wine industry in Oregon are seeing earlier buds and later harvests. I can tell you they are adjusting their futures the reality of climate change.
* People are successfully growing wine grapes in the Gallatin Valley of Montana for the first time.
* Grizzly bears in Yellowstone are denning later and emerging sooner. And 70 percent of the whitebark pine in the Yellowstone area is dead or dying. These are high-elevation trees that are being killed by beetles surviving the winters because they aren't cold enough to kill them anymore.

Does this prove anything? Nope. But, like Redwing says, when people on the ground starting seeing, then it's believing. Interestingly, some of the most ardent climate change skeptics here in the West are beginning to embrace the idea, though purely for exploitative reasons: They want to build more dams to impound more water, and they want to log trees before they die.

Also, studies in western Oregon show that climate change will actually enhance forest growth. So, not all a disaster, depending on your perspective.

No flaming intended. Just my 2 cents.

[danb]

Originally Posted by Sawtooth Spartan

Actually, you have a fair point here, though I do think the science is pretty conclusive. The folks who are concerned about what climate change will bring rightfully rely on science, but people need to see the impacts on the ground to be persuaded.

For me, it's stuff like this:
* I spend three weeks in Alaska among Native folks who are seeing animals their storied peoples have no names for, and the tree line moving farther north. Why is this a bad thing?
* Smallmouth bass -- a warm-water fish -- are moving farther upstream in the Yellowstone River, a world-renowned trout stream. Yeah, insert your bass-boat joke here, but I can tell you the many people who make a living off folks who come here to Montana to fly-fish are concerned. Oh, and bass are being seen in the lower reaches of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River for the first time. Why is this a bad thing?
* People in the wine industry in Oregon are seeing earlier buds and later harvests. Why is this a bad thing? I can tell you they are adjusting their futures the reality of climate change.
* People are successfully growing wine grapes in the Gallatin Valley of Montana for the first time. Why is this a bad thing?
* Grizzly bears in Yellowstone are denning later and emerging sooner. And 70 percent of the whitebark pine in the Yellowstone area is dead or dying. These are high-elevation trees that are being killed by beetles surviving the winters because they aren't cold enough to kill them anymore. Why is this a bad thing?

Does this prove anything? Nope. But, like Redwing says, when people on the ground starting seeing, then it's believing. Interestingly, some of the most ardent climate change skeptics here in the West are beginning to embrace the idea, though purely for exploitative reasons: They want to build more dams to impound more water, and they want to log trees before they die.

Also, studies in western Oregon show that climate change will actually enhance forest growth. So, not all a disaster, depending on your perspective.

No flaming intended. Just my 2 cents.

I really see nothing here that demands we destroy the economy of the world and capitalism because of man made global chaos. (Not that you were implying that.)

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

So your using peoples' religious beliefs to defend global warming? hmmm, irony.

Logic fail...

He's using the religious beliefs of some people to show that public opinion has very little bearing on empirical evidence used to explain questions about the world we live in.

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by danb

I really see nothing here that demands we destroy the economy of the world and capitalism because of man made global chaos.

That's good because nobody is suggesting we do that.

Just the opposite.

[GRR Spartan]

Lars, a guy who's gets a portion of his living depending on science wants mob rule to carry the day.

The pinko Christie Todd Whitman believes the science.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by danb

I really see nothing here that demands we destroy the economy of the world and capitalism because of man made global chaos. (Not that you were implying that.)

The fear mongering is entirely on the hysterical denier side.

The global warming predictions are based on the science. The fear mongering from the deniers is contrary to the respected research.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Sawtooth Spartan

Actually, you have a fair point here, though I do think the science is pretty conclusive. The folks who are concerned about what climate change will bring rightfully rely on science, but people need to see the impacts on the ground to be persuaded.

For me, it's stuff like this:
* I spend three weeks in Alaska among Native folks who are seeing animals their storied peoples have no names for, and the tree line moving farther north.
* Smallmouth bass -- a warm-water fish -- are moving farther upstream in the Yellowstone River, a world-renowned trout stream. Yeah, insert your bass-boat joke here, but I can tell you the many people who make a living off folks who come here to Montana to fly-fish are concerned. Oh, and bass are being seen in the lower reaches of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River for the first time.
* People in the wine industry in Oregon are seeing earlier buds and later harvests. I can tell you they are adjusting their futures the reality of climate change.
* People are successfully growing wine grapes in the Gallatin Valley of Montana for the first time.
* Grizzly bears in Yellowstone are denning later and emerging sooner. And 70 percent of the whitebark pine in the Yellowstone area is dead or dying. These are high-elevation trees that are being killed by beetles surviving the winters because they aren't cold enough to kill them anymore.

Does this prove anything? Nope. But, like Redwing says, when people on the ground starting seeing, then it's believing. Interestingly, some of the most ardent climate change skeptics here in the West are beginning to embrace the idea, though purely for exploitative reasons: They want to build more dams to impound more water, and they want to log trees before they die.

Also, studies in western Oregon show that climate change will actually enhance forest growth. So, not all a disaster, depending on your perspective.

No flaming intended. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing that you have mentioned though shows that humans are causing any of these items you listed.

[Sawtooth Spartan]

Originally Posted by danb

I really see nothing here that demands we destroy the economy of the world and capitalism because of man made global chaos. (Not that you were implying that.)

Are you suggesting man in general and Americans in particular don't have the ingenuity to make changes? The potential for smart people to make a difference, make a lot of money and put a lot of people to work is enormous.

For instance, why is it assumed the only way people can work in the forest is to cut trees? Why can't they be paid to do restoration -- which, yes, includes removing dead trees? The thinking is so narrow.

Look at Al Gore. Right-wingers deride him for making a lot of money off climate change. Normally, you're the first in line to applaud CEOs who make a ton of money using their ingenuity. You certainly wouldn't complain if he were making all that dough off the stock market or digging coal mines.

And yeah, nobody is suggesting the ruination of the world economy. People in Pittsburgh made the same hysterical claims back in the '60s when the mills were told they'd have to clean their filthy black skies. Today, it's one of the cleanest and most vibrant cities in America.

Heaven forbid that Detroit follow a similar model ... it might ruin the economy.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

No he is not wrong at all. Why can't scientists figure out why CO2 increase lags temperature increases? Isn't that the opposite of what global warming theory speculates?

Logic fail.

The scientific consensus (which can be demonstrated in several different ways) is not directly related to the temp lag, which has been explained again and again and again. I'm sure a well read skeptic such as yourself has read the explanations. Right?