Climate Change

The Debate Over Global Warming Is Just a Big Misunderstanding, Says Study

Or is it?

|

YellingLouder
beejalparmar

A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 63 percent of Americans think climate change is a serious problem—down from 69 percent last June. Among Democrats, 80 percent thought global warming is a serious problem, 65 percent wanted more federal government action to stop it, and 57 percent believed most scientists agree on whether global warming is happening. In contrast, 60 percent of Republicans said climate change is not a serious problem, less than 25 percent wanted more government action, and two-thirds thought there is "a lot of disagreement among scientists" about the issue.

What accounts for this partisan divide? According to a new study by the Princeton psychologist Sander van der Linden and his colleagues, Republicans doubt man-made global warming largely because that they don't know most climate scientists think it's a real and urgent problem. Once conservatives, liberals, and moderates are informed that a scientific consensus on climate change exists, the study concludes, they lay down their debating points and come together in a climatic kumbaya of political harmony and depolarization. The climate change political fight is just one big misunderstanding that can be cleared up simply by telling Americans what scientists think about the issue.

It would be good news indeed in these contentious times if simply providing people with information about what scientists think would dispel intense conflicts over public policy issues. But the study's data don't do much to support the authors' bold claims. 

The researchers conducted a survey of more than 6,000 Americans, who were divided into two groups. One group was told that "97 percent of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused global warming is happening" and then asked about climate change issues; the other was not given the 97 percent figure. That statistic was most likely drawn from a 2013 review of the scientific literature; the number is, to put it mildly, somewhat controversial. In any case, the researchers report that only 10 percent of Americans "correctly understand that the scientific consensus ranges between 90 percent to 100 percent." Twenty-five percent of liberals shared this understanding; just 5 percent of conservatives did.

Van der Linden and company claim that their new study replicates findings in a similar study they did in 2015. In that earlier paper, they surveyed more than 1,000 Americans about their beliefs concerning climate change and then told them about the 97 percent consensus among scientists. Did that change their beliefs about climate change? Very marginally.

Using a 100-point scale, they found that all respondents increased their "belief certainty" about the occurrence of climate change from 73.08 points to 77.01 points after being told about the consensus. Correspondingly, human causation belief certainty went from 63.98 to 68.02; worry rose from 62.84 to 67.32; and support for government action increased from 75.19 to 76.88 points. The researchers also claim that providing information about the consensus resulted in greater belief certainty increases among conservatives than among liberals. (Oddly, they do not provide the raw survey data. Update: Now available here.*) From these results, they concluded that "effectively communicating the scientific consensus can also help move the issue of climate change forward on the public policy agenda." Drawing this conclusion from a one-shot survey that shifted the strength of opinions about climate change by less than 5 percentage points seems a bit of a stretch.

The new study is no stronger. Again they leave out the raw survey data. But using a 7-point scale this time, they report that conservatives' belief that global warming is happening measures 4.57 points. (Just for comparison, moderates score 5.38 on that question and liberals 6.16.) Once conservatives are informed about the scientific consensus, their score increases to 4.81 points. Conservative support for government action on climate change increases by .08 points after they're told about the consensus.

The researchers also claim that they do not find any evidence for conservative "belief polarization"—that is, a counter-reaction to claims about the consensus that would lead them to believe less strongly in man-made global warming. They do find that conservatives, even after being told about the scientific consensus, still express lower acceptance that global warming is caused by humanity, less worry about it, and less support for government action than do similarly informed moderates and liberals.

Overall, the authors espouse what they call the "gateway belief" model of persuasion: If Americans are told that most scientists think man-made climate change is happening, they will think so too. Not only that: They will become more worried about it and start demanding government action to stop it. And so the study essentially endorses more science education as the way to resolve climate change rows.

These findings contradict previous research from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project, which concluded that beliefs about politicized areas of science are generally treated as cultural signals telling fellow partisans that you are a good person who is on their side. According to the Yale researchers, getting people to change their minds about a politicized issue amounts to trying to persuade them to betray their tribe. This dynamic makes them highly resistant to attempts to bombard them with alleged widely agreed-upon facts. Contrariwise, the folks at the Cognition Project find that the smarter a person is, the easier it is for them to find "proof" for his or her beliefs.

Do the results reported by van der Linden and his team show the way to a political consensus on climate change? Not hardly, says the Cognition Project researcher Dan Kahan. In fact, recent polling data from the Cognition Project and the Annenberg Public Policy Center aimed at measuring "ordinary science intelligence" show that as the science comprehension of both Republicans and Democrats goes up, they become more, not less, polarized on climate change. (See below.) In addition, as the science comprehension of both conservatives and liberals increases, so does the perception by both that there is scientific consensus on climate change. But scientifically literate conservatives don't believe that the consensus is right.**

ClimateDivide
Kahan

"As relatively 'right-leaning' individuals become progressively more proficient in making sense of scientific information," Kahan reports, "they become simultaneously more likely to believe there is 'scientific consensus' on human-caused climate change but less likely to 'believe' in it themselves!" He adds, "One thing that is clear from these data is that it's ridiculous to claim that 'unfamiliarity' with scientific consensus on climate change 'causes' non-acceptance of human-caused global warming."

The slim statistics supplied by van der Linden and his team don't change that much. Constantly hammering on the message that there is a consensus among climate scientists does not seem to be a fruitful route toward depoliticizing the issue.

*Follow these instructions to get the doi to open.

**Updated to include links to published peer-reviewed study.

NEXT: Russian on trial for 'insulting the feelings of believers' by denying the existence of God

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I would modestly claim to be “proficient in making sense of scientific information,” and it seems that the surveys don’t account for realistic scientific views of “we have no fucking clue and the models don’t work.”

    1. Yes. Although one side is more likely to agree with that I don’t draw any scientific literacy conclusion form that.

    2. Yes. Although one side is more likely to agree with that I don’t draw any scientific literacy conclusion form that.

      1. Who gives a shit about what people believe about the “facts” about Globabble warmerering?

        What about the “facts” that Government Almighty ***LOVES*** us all?!??!?

        I heard that 97% of all the REALLY smart scientists AGREE that Government Almighty Loves us all! FAR more than we love ourselves! And THAT, my friends, should be ENOUGH! BELIEVE, ye heathens!

        1. Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

          Government loves me, This I know,
          For the Government tells me so,
          Little ones to GAWD belong,
          We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          My Nannies tell me so!

          GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
          Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
          Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
          And gives me all that I might need!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          My Nannies tell me so!

          DEA, CIA, KGB,
          Our protectors, they will be,
          FBI, TSA, and FDA,
          With us, astride us, in every way!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          My Nannies tell me so!

          1. Its gubmint you faulty nozzle. Get your vocabulary right

            gubmint
            Government, as used by right-wing pansies, used to “protest” progressive taxation against the capitalist class who stole the wealth from the working class in the first place. In the place of taxation, the right-wingers advocate charity, in other words, they ask the capitalists to be generous with other people’s (working class) money!
            “Waah! The gubmint stole my money which I got by brutally exploiting third world sweatshop employees! Waah!” – Right-winger crying over taxes

            http://www.urbandictionary.com…..rm=Gubmint

    3. This. It is because I am “proficient in making sense of scientific information” that I call shenanigans on much of the “global warming consensus”. Global warming and its potential impacts are somewhere near the bottom of my list of global catastrophe concerns. If people really want to wet the bed about global disasters they should be looking into asteroid collisions, massive seduction zones like Juan De Fuca, global cooling, super volcanoes like Yellow Stone, emp blasts from solar flares, etc…. And yet, we are concentrating all of our efforts on a “problem” that would likely have more positive benefits for human beings than negative impacts. I wonder why that is? Hint: It has nothing to do with “science”.

      1. massive seduction zones like Juan De Fuca

        I don’t know this Juan fellow, but does he have a sister?

        1. Of course. You haven’t heard of Ivanne De Fuca?

        2. No, but he’s no longer a “he”. Now she’s Wanda Fuca.

      2. Anyone who says that 97% of scientists agree on anything, much less something as complex as global warming, is either scientifically illiterate or lying.

        1. If you don’t agree with MEEEEE, then you are NOT a real scientist!

          (Also, the REAL scientists are the ones that get the Government Almighty grants, and so, they are unbiased. The ones that take a single dollar from KKKorporate AmeriKKKa and the KKKoch Brothers?!?! Obviously, THEY cannot be trusted; are not REAL scientists!)

          1. Name one scientist that isn’t “funded” by someone pulling strings

            Why can’t a billionaire do their own science anyways? Not hire a scientist to be their lackey

        2. Anyone who says that 97% of scientists agree on anything, much less something as complex as global warming, is either scientifically illiterate or lying.

          Especially as Cook (2013), AKA that linked “2013 review,” is more flaw than study. It includes in that 97% psychological papers and papers of authors who themselves have debunked John Cook’s work.

        3. I’ve been catching up on issues of Reason Magazine that I haven’t gotten to in the past year or so, and I found myself seriously disappointed with Ron Bailey’s conversion to Warmite.

          Some recent data show that the 97% “Consensus” number came from a subset of ‘climate scientists’… scores out of several hundred polled were cherry-picked.

          When the ‘poll’ was expanded to several Thousand such “experts” the Consensus came Very Close To 50%.

          And 50-50 in something So Serious is like deciding where to invest tens of trillions of dollars based on a COIN TOSS.

          Sorry, but that’s my engineering-view of this Alleged “Discussion.” Sorry, Ronald…

          1. I want to live in a space station, not a straw hut.

      3. I rank AGW as a concern somewhere below the likelihood of an imminent Dalek invasion.

    4. I am well educated in a distantly related engineering field, and I agree that manmade gas emissions are warming the planet, I just don’t accept that (a) scientists can accurately predict the extent of the warming, (b) solutions can be enacted that change the temperature more than nature already does through natural means and randomness, (c) if these solutions exist that they would be worth destroying the world energy economy to stave off a disaster prediction of questionable accuracy, or (d) that governments could effectively implement even the imaginary solution with no downside.

      1. Denierrrrr!!!!!1!!!!111!!!!!

        /Tony and his fellow progtards

        1. I deny the subjective claim that “warming” is “bad”

      2. or (e) that anything “we” (whities) do will have a meaningful impact on the rising trend of worldwide CO2 emissions.

      3. Me too and I was going to post the same thing but maybe add: (e) will the benefits from a warmer, wetter planet outweigh the costs?

        I also wanted to say something about the positive feedbacks that are always assumed which by and large do not exist in nature. More than once anyway.

      4. If you look at the study Ron references, you’ll find that anyone who believes that greenhouse gas emissions from any source would tend to warm the atmosphere or anyone who believes that man’s greenhouse gas emissions would tend to warm the planet is part of the 97%. I’m part of the 97%; you’re part of the 97%. Man’s additional fossil fuel emissions seemingly would tend to warm the planet, everything else being equal. Of course, everything else is NOT equal – not by a long shot! – so we don’t know if we’re significantly warming the place above the often-subtle, very low-frequency cycles and noise of natural variation (about which we know relatively little) or if a mild warming is in the least dangerous – or perhaps desirable? The powers that be benefit greatly if it can be said that our energy use is warming the place at a dangerous rate and we’re all going to fry if we don’t give them carte blanche supervisory and economic control of our energy use, none of this “uncertainty” stuff! Energy use, at least so far, is one pie into which they may have gotten a few fingers, but it’s rich and ripe for a whole hand, maybe both of them. It is well to remember that more than 3/4 of the 97% in the study breakdown (not to mention the many more authors of tossed-out papers) evidenced little to no hint of alarm about man’s emissions. Except maybe for those authors investigating the atmospherics of bean soup day at the cafeteria.

      5. Surprised to see that JackassAce hasn’t shouted you down yet….

        1. Probably too busy having his usual serial jerk off session to an endless loop of “An Inconvenient Truth”.

  2. Comically, the 97% number is completely made up; I encourage everyone to try to identify where the number comes from, and to read the two studies that are the sources of the claim, and the controversies of how the surveys were done. It will be a very eye opening experience.

    1. What are you talking about? The 97% number is totally true because tea-baggers are idiots! All reality-based people know this! You shilling for the Koch brothers or something?

      1. Kochtopus!

    2. The way I heard it is that the number is probably close to accurate if the question is simply “Is human activity impacting the climate?”. But that is not the same as “Is human activity likely to lead to catastrophic climate change?” or “Is [x] the best way to mitigate the effects of climate change?”.

      1. If they put it that way, I’d believe it. I’d be very surprised if human activity didn’t affect climate in some way.

        1. It might have been a bit more specific, like “Are CO2 and other green house gas emissions from industrial activity contributing to a warming of the Earth”, but I think that is probably still a fairly uncontroversial subject among climate scientists. As for the magnitude of the contribution relative to other sources, the long term impact, and the viable mitigation strategies, that’s a different story.

        2. I’d be very surprised if human activity didn’t affect climate in some way.

          There’s a couple of historical changes that I have seen attributed to human activity. No idea how valid these are:

          One is the drying out of North Africa and parts of the Mediterranean (I think). Back in the ancient egyptian days, supposedly Egypt and environs was much wetter and not so much a thin arable zone surrounded by hardcore desert. Overgrazing changed that to more desert.

          Similarly, when the Spanish got to South Texas, it was apparently a lush grassland. Since then, it has become more arid, possibly due to deforestation and, again, grazing.

          1. Deforestation and erosion seem to be much more obvious examples of human activity genuinely affecting climate in dramatic fashion; CO2 emissions, not so much. Easter Island is the big example, and allegedly the UK was subject to dramatic deforestation during the middle ages into the 1500s between the widespread reliance on charcoal and the building of ships for the royal navy.

          2. Sorry, but no.

            Man-made CO2 emissions have only been a factor in perhaps the last 100-120 years. You can blame just regular old ‘universal dickery’ for pretty much all the worst things that have ever happened to this planet; and likely will continue to be the deciding factor forever until we blanket-nuke the planet in an effort to cool things back off again from all our CO2. Also, Westward expansion resulted in cows pooping tree’s across the entire nation resulting in far more tree’s than would have otherwise existed. (An inconvenient truth indeed.)

            Go look at the PPM of CO2 in the environment over the course of the last hundred million years. We are way, way closer to the minimum amount needed in the environment for all life to continue than any ‘disaster’ level posited by the wack jobs.

            They only focus on CO2 because it’s easier to whine about that than to try an impose economic sanctions on China for their CFC productions. This is how you know they aren’t serious about anything what-so-ever on the subject.

      2. 097% of the people who bothered to reply agreed. No indication of the number of surveys they sent out.

        1. Nope. If you are referring to the older paper, that’s not quite how it worked; they tried to correct for that error by throwing out most of their data.

    3. David Friedman did a did a good analysis of the 97% claim a couple years ago.

      1. That’s a great read.

  3. Ask them about free market solutions to climate change and see how things go. But I doubt the study authors are interested in that.

    1. Free markets caused climate change! The only solution is socialism! All reality-based people know this!

      1. Free markets didn’t cause climate change. People not wanting to be poor did. I suppose there is a relationship insofar as free markets are the best way to make people not poor, but mixed and full on command economies both have a record of environmental degradation, often worse than free market economies. And the solution to climate change is to make people rich — only then will they start to care about what might happen 100 years from now. And as for how to make them rich, see bove.

        PS
        I know you are being sarcastic.

      2. There are no free markets..never have been any either. Get your facts straight

    2. …or look at climate change as a public works issue. How do we deal with the negative consequences of climate change while maximizing the positive ones.

      Of course, the problem with this is that you need a robust technological capitalist society to create both the solutions and the tax dollars to implement them. That is also probably not the goal of the study authors.

  4. The big unfounded assumption, it seems to me, is that if people could be convinced on the science that global warming is a real, serious problem, they will agree on what should be done about it.

    I’m really not in a position to make a well informed judgement about the science, so I accept (with a big grain of salt) much of what supposed experts tell us. But I sure as hell don’t agree with most of their favored ways of dealing with it. Any government imposed “solution”, I am quite convinced, will do far more harm than good.

    1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since this likely requires government policy and government action, all you’re saying is that libertarians (who are dogmatically antigovernment) aren’t interested in a seat at the table. Since most of you deny the basic facts or skirt around them so as not to challenge your dogma, you don’t really deserve one anyway. So don’t whine when the time comes.

      1. The moron has spoken. We can all go home now.

      2. You and your ilk have no idea if any of your proposed “solutions,” such as the CCP, will do anything at all. However, a rational person knows that such “solutions” will increase the cost of living and further restrict economic freedom, so skepticism is in order. Inaction may just as well be a better solution. The burden should be on you, and it is a heavy burden indeed.

        1. *edit: CPP, not CCP

          1. Wait, not CCCP?

        2. Indeed. Lets run your proposals through the Precautionary Principle. Enviros love that one, right?

          Now remember, the PP says you look at the costs, and not the benefits. If there are any costs, you can’t do it.

          Now, go!

      3. Haven’t seen you for a while. I thought maybe you disappeared for good.

        1. I blame Ron. He knows changing climate brings out the retards.

        2. He was busy pretending he was convincing democrats to go for Hillary instead of Bernie.

      4. We’ve already reduced greenhouse gas emissions to pre-1992 levels (almost exclusively without the intervention of government). So why the fuck should we be forced at gun point to reduce more AND pay some third world shithole?

        Shouldn’t people like you be begging everyone to frack more and build nuclear plants (you know, since those are the most economical ways to provide energy to people)? Never mind that you can’t prove why it being warmer is necessarily a bad thing.

        It’s almost like you don’t really care about the environment and only want control…

        1. I think it is the control part. Tony does it bother you that NG has helped reduce emissions? Do you support nuclear?

        2. I think the control is a big part of it. Also another big part is that the lefties get to skim (about 2/3 usually) of the money we send to said third-world shitholes. Administrative expenses are a bitch when government does it.

      5. Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?

        Until now, I didn’t know that there was Affirmative Action in science for Down’s Syndrome.

      6. A few questions:

        What is the magnitude of the problem and how did you determine this?

        1. What government policy is needed to reduce greenhouse emissions?
        2. How much will it reduce emissions by?
        3. What will the reduction in emissions impact on climate be?

      7. Dance puppets

      8. Since humans contribute roughly 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, it follows that: humans contribute very little to climate change; and that there is very little we can to effect climate change.

        The political divide shows that this is almost completely a political issue and not a scientific one. Statists are always concerned about things they believe the state ought to fix. They are also very much against the free market (that created the industrial revolution, that increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) because it works independently of the government. Liberals (the classical kind) are always skeptical about government intervention and problems that involve government solutions. Therefore, there will always be a political divide over these sorts of issues.

        1. The political divide shows that this is almost completely a political issue and not a scientific one.

          Absolutely. Table agreement on the nature of climate change and whether (and to what extent) human behavior impacts climate; the loudest voices arguing about the imminence of catastrophic climate change are the ones whose proposed solutions also just happen to a.) strengthen the regulatory authority of the federal government and b.) increase state involvement in the market. In short, these cats start by seeing free market capitalism as the problem and then look for ways to attack it under the guise of ostensibly apolitical motivations like environmental conservation.

          1. …these cats start by seeing free market capitalism as the problem and then look for ways to attack it under the guise of ostensibly apolitical motivations…

            This is what I see in every argument regarding government action on Climate Change?.

            They hate the free market, freedom of association, freedom of speech, etc. In general, they hate laissez faire.

            1. They despise liberty. They feel that everyone should be controlled. Allowing people to act without asking permission and obeying orders is chaos. There must be order. No one should be allowed to do anything without asking permission and obeying orders. Except get an abortion that is. But other than that, all choices are to be made by government. This is because, while people are selfish and unable to be trusted with their own lives, once someone enters government a miracle happens. They cease to be fallible humans and become selfless angels. They cease to think of their own self interest and only serve the greater good. Well, that’s not totally true. Republicans don’t. But Democrats do. They are gods who deserve to be worshiped.

              Now let us pray:

              Our Government, who art in Washington, hallowed by thy name…

      9. The cleanest energy available today is nuclear. Currently, due to regulatory burdens, opening new plants, upgrading old ones, and general innovations in safety and efficiency are being stifled, while at the same time, our government is allocating resources towards Wind and Solar, which could not provide enough power to be substantial (due to the fickle nature of those sources of energy, and the land required to make a difference). Pardon me for thinking that doubling down on the current policies and ignoring other solutions, that are actually profitable enough without subsidies if we remove the regulatory burden for companies to do it, isn’t the best solution. Instead, people like me shouldn’t have a seat at the table, and the status quo of using the threat of climate change to funnel money to your donors through subsidies, should march along unmolested.

        1. Excellent observation. Fusion is where investment should be however we may have to disclose some of that alien technology discovered in Roswell to get it done. Your mention of Wind energy made me think of a recent story detailing the thousands of birds, especially Bald eagles being thunked to death. Two bleeding red flags are: 1) The often severe penalties for killing the birds are overlooked and 2) the Greenies pushing this technology are uncharacteristically mute on this ‘brutality.’ Ridiculous.

        2. I support an expanded nuclear power program.

          But my understanding of the issue of liability following a truly catastrophic event is that the insurer of last resort is the Federal Government and that without that ultimate guarantee the nuclear industry would never have developed in a capitalist society. The financial risk would have been prohibitive for insurers and energy companies.

          There certainly is insurance available, indeed mandated, for the nuclear industry. But at some level of catastrophe the energy and insurance industries are off the hook and the government, the taxpayer, assumes (Is made to assume.) liability.

          Below quote from: Liability for Nuclear Damage (Updated 25 February 2016)

          “Liability is limited by both international conventions and by national legislation, so that beyond the limit (normally covered by insurance) the state can accept responsibility as insurer of last resort, as in all other aspects of industrial society.”

          http://www.world-nuclear.org/i…..amage.aspx

          If accurate, what is the libertarian understanding of this? Forego nuclear power if the prerequisite is such State involvement in the industry? I presume we can agree that fully adequate insurance is indeed a moral and legal must.

      10. Ha, you state-worshipping proggies have turned environmentalism into a religion and you have the nerve to call our beliefs dogmatic. Fortunately, no one here gives a fuck what you think we do or do not deserve.

      11. By the same token, when your government doesn’t decide to bless you with material enrichment for you good behavior, don’t go blaming markets.

      12. Just because you’re not intelligent enough to understand the argument for a smaller government, that doesn’t make it dogma.
        Also, I think your authoritarian tendency is showing.

      13. Where you been dipshit…did your DNC stipend get pulled, as it should have been. Even the DNC isn’t immune to stupid.

  5. I’ve studied the subject and you can make the atmosphere 100% CO2 and nothing would change without other inputs such as massive volcanic activity or solar radiation. its beyond our ability to control but those who want the power over others are using it to control our every day activities.

    1. I’ve studied the subject and you can make the atmosphere 100% CO2 and nothing would change without other inputs such as massive volcanic activity or solar radiation.

      What? Perhaps I misunderstand you. But 100% CO2 atmosphere would kill most things. And solar radiation is something we can pretty well count on too.

      1. I din’t say it wouldn’t kill you but thats not the subject is it.

    2. 100% *more* CO2?

  6. Listen, global climate change is real, and it’s going to have consequences in the future. All scientists agree.

    Therefore, we need to switch all of humanity back to an agrarian, pre-industrial society.

    And if you don’t get that, you’re just a science-denying flat-earther.

    1. “Therefore, we need to switch all of humanity back to an agrarian, pre-industrial society.”

      Funny but I don’t see any of the alarmists volunteering to lead by example by moving into a cave and spending all of their time foraging for roots and berries.

      1. They are convinced their time and money is better spent on activism.

        On that front, but slightly OT —
        I listened to a Radiolab episode on surrogate mothers in Nepal and the large gay Israeli clientele base they have. While they expressed some concern over exploitation, on the whole they did a great job of presenting the Indian and Nepalese women’s side of the story. They noted that the relatively small amount of money they receive (by US standards) is more than many make in 5 years of being a maid. Many women use it to buy land (a big deal in those societies) or start a business. A well done piece.

        So I scrolled through the comments. They were mixed, with some people *strongly* feeling like these women were being exploited, no matter how they used the money.

        One commenter in particular said that it would be better if that time and money that is currently going to these (poor) Indian women were used for activism to promote real change for women.

        Ask yourself who those activists are likely to be? Poor women? I think not. They are either going to be rich Indian women or, more likely, rich Western women.

        But in this commenters mind it was better to give rich people money for activism than to give poor people money to invest in the future of themselves and their families.

        I think that attitude explains a lot.

        1. I like Radio Lab a lot. I can’t think of anything they’ve done that I didn’t think was pretty fair and interesting.

        2. One thing that it explains to me–or reinforces to me–is that progressives don’t trust people to solve their own problems.

          1. There is that. There is also the — I’m not quire sure what word to use — selfishness? of believing that activism and protests are the best way to change the world. It doesn’t even comport with their stated world view: corporations and profit are so powerful and corrupting that they can control vast swaths of the population and the government, and their answer is…a music festival? I think it must tie back into their belief in the power of democracy and their reliance on the political process as the only way to realize democracy (which, again, doesn’t really comport with their world view). I suspect it also reinforces their desperate need to feel meaningful, because it makes them the agents of change.

            1. …because it makes them the agents of change

              Ah, Progress?. You make a good point. Progress for its own sake is good. Stasis (conservatism) is bad. But, of course, in your example, the women were progressing but in a market oriented way rather than a political one. So it seems that progressives can only imagine political, or state, solutions–which I think you pointed out.

              1. I think they can imagine it, but they don’t trust it, because they don’t feel empowered by it. That’s not to say you can’t find instances of abuse in markets (or that you can’t find instances of state solutions that work), but I think progressives are blinded to the overwhelming power of markets because it reduces their role.

            2. ” There is also the — I’m not quire sure what word to use — selfishness? of believing that activism and protests are the best way to change the world”

              Or they actually care more about political preening in front of their peers than they do about the actual subject that they nominally purport to care about.

              1. The liberty of other people, without guidance from them or other wiser overseers, distresses them. That’s what’s called “liberal” these days.

    2. Until the progs volunteer to be one of the billions of people who’ll starve to death if we do everything they want, they can go pound sand.

      I may be a ‘science-denying flat-earther’, but I have land in the middle of nowhere. I can grow food, what the hell are you going to eat in Boston (chuckle)? Each other?

      1. I volunteer to take your farm when you can’t cope with climate change.

        Till then, you can wait for a buyer that won’t come.

    3. Global climate change real? Uh…yes, yes it is. It has been changing since the earth first formed an atmosphere. Going to have consequences? Consequences good and bad by definition is a constant. All scientists agree? Uh________.

      “Therefore, we need to switch all of humanity back to an agrarian, pre-industrial society”. Let me fix this for you.
      Therefore, we need to kill off most of humanity to preserve resources for the chosen.

      At the end of the day, this is an anti-human movement. It takes lots of energy/resources to keep nearly 8 billion people alive and many would just assume eliminate most of them whether realized or not.

  7. OT from TP: Groove-in

    http://thinkprogress.org/justi…..marijuana/

    In response to the Obama administration’s unwillingness to take action on reforming marijuana laws, the D.C. Cannabis Campaign (DCMJ) is planning to light up outside the White House on April 2.

    The event, Reschedule 420, will feature mass consumption of cannabis, which remains illegal on federal land. (Marijuana consumption did recently become legal on private property in Washington, D.C., however.)

    DCMJ chair Adam Eidinger tells ThinkProgress that while he doesn’t expect arrests, he welcomes them.

    “It’s time for marijuana users to voluntarily get arrested,” he says. “We relish a confrontation. We want a mass arrest, but my guess is they won’t arrest a soul.”

    1. I think the only thing limiting mass arrests will be manpower.

      1. If Adam Kokesh’s Million Martyr March was any indication, the protesters will be the ones undermanned.

  8. Climate activists and science framers seem reluctant to ask respondents ” have you experienced ?” questions, rather than ones about what- or whom, they believe.

  9. At the Climate Reality Project, Oscars are or most important product .

  10. It is difficult to believe we are still talking about this.

    All of the models fail to make accurate predictions. Every single prediction was wrong. After repeatedly failing to make accurate predictions and repeatedly being show false the warmistas simply morphed their assertions into a tautology. They then attempt to shut down any discussion or examination of their position by calling skeptics ‘deniers’ and calling the science settled. ‘Shut up and pay up’ is the motto of global warming. They have been caught manipulating data and lying.

    This is not science. It is straight-up flimflammery.

    I don’t see how it is possible to have an honest, serious discussion about climate science.

  11. Apparently there is a partisan divide between the people who think industry funded scientists who produce results favorable to that industry are lying shills and the people who think state funded scientists who produce results favorable to that industry are lying shills. But why can’t they both be right?

    1. They may very well be. The science was politicized from the very beginning with the rush to enact policy as soon as preliminary observations of warming were made.

  12. Once conservatives, liberals, and moderates are informed that a scientific consensus on climate change exists, the study concludes, they lay down their debating points and come together in a climatic kumbaya of political harmony and depolarization. The climate change political fight is just one big misunderstanding that can be cleared up simply by telling Americans what scientists think about the issue.

    So, once they’ve been lied to, they come to the intended conclusion?

    1. Isn’t that the scientific method?

    2. We should all just shut up and think what we are told.

  13. I’m unfamiliar with scientific standards of evidence, but I understand legal standards of evidence. If we were to apply the latter to the theory of AGW, what should the evidentiary burden of proof be to enact policies like the CPP? Preponderance of the evidence? Clear and convincing evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Something else?

    I think the economic implications of the policy provide an answer. The more economically destructive the policy will be, the higher the evidentiary burden that should be placed on that policy’s supporters.

    Have proponents of the CPP and the like made their case beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, the policy should not be adopted.

    1. I’m unfamiliar with scientific standards of evidence

      Short version: unambiguous prediction which can be falsified by data. If, as an example, I predict that there will be a 0.5?C increase next year, followed by a 0.7?C drop the following year, defining specifically how those temperatures are measured, and I get a 0.2?C rise both years, my model is wrong.

      1. And your example is largely what has happened with climate models, right?

        1. On a few levels. First, there’s no agreement on what we mean by “temperature” in this context. Second, we have a lot of uncertainty in how “temperature” is measured, once you define it. Third, we have even more uncertainty on how the measurements convert to a single “temperature” number. Fourth, we have to define how temperature is normalized between different measurement methods, since they change over time as well. Fifth, we have to understand and control for confounding variables in the measurement. Sixth, the time scale where the measurements are reliable is extremely short. And then finally, the models don’t give correct answers irrespective of how the number is arrived at. Do any of this stuff post hoc and you’re just playing scientist by putting on a white coat.

          Basically, the system is so complex and nonlinear (dare I say chaotic?) that we truly have no clue.

          1. dare I say chaotic?

            Which is an additional–and important–reason why little of it makes scientific sense. Which is what I think you are saying.

            It seems preposterous to distill a global, multivariate, chaotic system (that we little understand) down to a single variable. And then to claim that a change in this one variable is good or bad knowing that the variable goes back into the system and the system then adjusts to it. There is nothing about this whole line of inquiry that makes sense to me.

            Certainly climate and even climate change should be studied. But the assumption that change is bad is just plain stupid.

            1. Change is a given- climate has always changed and always will. No one “denies” that any more so than they deny the quantization of electron charge. The questions are really on the impact of different variables, many of which can’t be separated.

              1. Change is a given- climate has always changed and always will. No one “denies” that any

                Oddly, this has been a central argument of the “denialists”, and the seminal hockey stick graph depends crucially on denying this by flattening out the historical “handle” of the stick.

    2. Only rich people lose in socialism unless they will take gubmint jobs for much less wealth under their private control

  14. However, in no cases, was there unanimous certainty or agreement
    that the IPCC reports reflect a 100% consensual perspective of the phenomenon. In
    fact, the highest measure of full agreement that the IPCC reflected consensus is found
    in the variable ‘temperature’ where only 32% of the group that participated in the
    IPCC process ‘strongly agreed’ that ‘The IPCC Reports reflect the consensus of
    scientific thought pertaining to temperature’. Similar patterns were evident in all 12
    measures.

    “somewhat” controversial?

  15. If respondents did change their responses depending on an understanding of the supposed 97% consensus, then aren’t they basing their decisions on a logical fallacy? “Everyone thinks this,” isn’t a real argument.

    I’d be more impressed if the respondents were given a course in the various scientific arguments for and against different aspects of the climate debate (assuming the researchers could be trusted to fairly present both sides — and even admit there were two sides), and then quizzed to see how their views changed. Of course, GIGO.

  16. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  17. The number 97% of climate scientists isn’t controversial except for skeptics. Numerous studies came to the same conclusion. You’re just quibbling over the exact number. It remains an overwhelming concensus.

    I’ll let Richard Tol, who is one who has disputed the exact number of 97%, sum it up.

    “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

    So go ahead and pick which overwhelming number you would like…90, 85, 80. Keep in mind that when it comes to the world’s largest science organizations, the number is 100%.

    1. What was this survey based on and what was the questioning to determine this consenses?

      1. joe’s scientific knowledge is almost equal to his height.

        1. Hey, old man, that’s cruel!

          Joe is short, but not less than a foot tall short.

        2. You mean he is no taller than a subatomic particle?

      2. I’m not sur what “survey” you are referring to, but this page summarizes statements from science organizations. And it lists 4 different studies on papers published regarding climate change, and their finding that approx 90% or more support the theory around AGW. It is the first item in the reference section, so you can actually look at the studies.

        http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

        1. *sure

        2. Ok they support the theory. What are their thoughts on the magnitude and their proposals?

          1. I would suggest you go to their websites to find out. You should know that scientists don’t often suggest what the solutions should be, they leave that to those in policy. However, you will see that many do say it requires a reduction in greenhouse gasses, one way or the other.

            1. OK what are the risks, what is the impact and how did you determine this? What are your solutions and how much will they abate?

              1. I’ll help once but that’s it. American Association for the Advacement of Science. Largest general science organization in the world. This page explains their understanding and the risks.

                http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

                As you can see, they label it “get the facts.”

                1. It’s unfortunate that they lack any. The 97% has been thoroughly debunked as has the notion that storms, flooding, and drought have gotten more severe. It’s clear that their doomsday cult needs a doomsday, so they invent claims out of whole cloth. Accumulated Cycle Energy: no higher than 4 decades ago. Palmer drought index: no trend (down slightly). 2015 global insurance loss due to storm damage running at near record lows.

                  “Facts” indeed.

                2. As you can see, they label it “get the facts.”

                  What are they suppose to label it? ‘Get the propaganda’? Your an idiot.

                  1. Its all propaganda if you have a goal behind your facts….especially if you carefully consider how your facts are presented

                    prop?a?gan?da
                    ?pr?p???and?/
                    noun
                    noun: propaganda; noun: Propaganda

                    1. derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
                    “he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda”
                    synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin; More
                    disinformation, counter-information;
                    historical agitprop; informal info, hype, plugging;
                    puff piece; the big lie “the prophetic novel is about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda”
                    the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy.
                    “the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary”
                    2. a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV.

            2. I require an increase in synthetic GHG for a geoengineering project to bring crocodiles back to the North Pole….actually, getting rid of Panama and the Barring Straight would help more though

    2. Researchers are dependent on government money to fund their work as well as to advance within their university or lab. The US government spends billions of dollars per year ($4.8B, for 2015 I think) on climate change research. Why in the hell would any climate change researcher bite the hand that feeds them? I’d join that consensus, too, if it were buttering my bread.

      1. Enjoy your conspiracy theory.

        1. How is that a conspiracy theory. See australia.

          1. If you believe that every major science organization, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are all falsifying results for money, that my friend is a massive worldwide conspiracy theory.

            1. Wouldn’t this be a strawman? Where did i say such a thing?

              1. You asked “how is that a conspiracy theory” and o explained.

                1. You argued something i never said and he never said. Burn that strawman big boy

                  1. Big boy?

            2. You aren’t aware of the 1st law of bureaucracy are you?

              1. Is it that all climate scientists are on the take?

                1. Conspiracy is a bit of a strong word.

                  For example, some people say that the subprime lending crisis was caused by lenders incentivized to package bad loans into packages, and sell them as low risk.

                  Is that a conspiracy theory?

                  Does someone have to assume they’re all plotting in a basement somewhere to propose such a theory?

                  Decentralized people incentivized to do questionable things that all align to produce a questionable result does not equal “conspiracy”.

                  1. No it’s not. If you think all those studies and all those science organizations are only arriving at their conclusions on AGW for pure monetary reasons, that isn’t just a U.S. Conspiracy, it’s a world wide conspiracy. Dwarfs JFK. Dearfs 9/11.

                    1. …for pure monetary reasons…

                      Nobody has said “for pure monetary reasons”. Infact, I went out of my way to explain that everyone is influenced by their paycheck. You want to believe that Top Men are absolutely altruistic and uninfluenced by anything other than the science. But it ain’t so.

                    2. Well let’s be clear. Are you saying climate scientists derive their conclusions based on whoever is giving them money?

                    3. Well let’s be clear. Are you saying climate scientists derive their conclusions based on whoever is giving them money?

                      I’m saying that money influences decisions. The decision to go into a given field. The decision to apply for a particular grant. The decision to give the government what it wants so that you can get another grant since politics determines who gets what grant.

                      People are attracted by their beliefs and by their needs. Grant money speaks to their needs and wants. Many science journals refuse to publish studies that contradict the glorious consensus. Universities refuse to give tenure to anyone who contradicts the consensus. Grant money is unavailable to contradictory studies. It’s virtually impossible to publish a contradictory study. That’s why the NIPCC uses tenured and retired scientists to review studies and they do their own publishing.

                      I bet you haven’t read anything by the NIPCC because you don’t want to see anything that contradicts your beliefs. Yet you assume that other people are balance in their thinking, maybe because they have a PhD in some science field.

                    4. JA, Here’s how those scientific socities came out with their reports: They asked for VOLUNTEERS to serve on a committee to study the matter and issue a report. Guess who volunteered in the overwhelming majority? ACTIVISTS!

                      This is what the AGU and the APS did in the US, for instance. Their committees have set a disgraceful record of corner-cutting, cavalier decision making, and censorious behavior to their minority members and viewpoints.

                    5. Yeah, and all the killers for hire are out there killing people for money.

                      Therefore, all killers for hire are one, big conspiracy.

                      Do you have to be retarded while pretending to be the only adult in the room?

            3. Everybody does what their boss says if they want to keep their job. If they want to advance, then they do even more than the boss says and expects.

              I’m not claiming that researchers are falsifying data–NOAA has already done it many times–I’m merely saying that government spending on research pushes that research in the direction of policy. There are some studies that back this up. They’re listed in a book, so I’ll have to some digging.

              1. Absolutely…it is like the whole crumbling infrastructure thing

            4. …that my friend is a massive worldwide conspiracy theory.

              Eugenics was a consensus. Worldwide. It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was clearly wrong.

    3. The number 97% of climate scientists isn’t controversial except for skeptics. …

      There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change …

      The 2 are not the same idiot. Richard Tol also said:

      Consensus has no place in science. Academics agree on lots of things, but that does not make them true.

      Cook, the author of that atrocious paper is a proven liar. Tol goes on to say:

      The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.

      The 97% is bull shit which is evident to anybody that has bothered to look.

      Keep in mind that when it comes to the world’s largest science organizations, the number is 100%.

      And the number of those science organizations that actually asked the members what they thought is zero. It would be more accurate to state that 100% of the executive committees of those organizations are in agreement.

      Climate change is the Eugenics of our generation. The herd mentality is alive and well in the human race and idiots like Jackand are proud to participate in the stampede.

      1. Have a great weekend.

    4. http://daviddfriedman.blogspot…..k-for.html

      Educate yourself. Maybe you’ll come back next time and not be so short on intelligence.

    5. fuck off, joe…you lie and are too stupid to realize it.

  18. Why doesn’t it surprise me that the science-as-cargo-cult Progressives posit that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid, measured as not having heard the opinions of sanctioned Top Men who agree with them.

  19. hey all new here.

    Is tony a climate scientist or something? I would think so based on what he knows above.

    if not then i am not sure how anything he says on the topic is valid

    1. Burn!

      And welcome, you’ll fit right in.

  20. “Once conservatives, liberals, and moderates are informed that a scientific consensus on climate change exists, the study concludes, partisans lay down their debating points and come together in a climatic kumbaya of political harmony and depolarization.”

    I’d like to see a poll among conservatives, liberals, and moderates asking them two questions:

    1) What is the scientific consensus on how much the average American will need to sacrifice in his or her standard of living (in terms of GDP per capita) before our sacrifices have their first measurable impact on bringing down the average temperature?

    2) What is the scientific consensus on how long we will be required to sacrifice our standard of living at some level in order to resolve the problem of climate change completely?

    Once progressives come to terms with the answers to those questions? I have no idea what would happen to political polarization. Because I don’t believe progressive voters are generally capable of even formulating reasonable responses to those questions–much less answering them. Listening to progressives talk about how the economy works is worse than listening to creationists talk about evolution.

    1. “Because I don’t believe progressive voters are generally capable of even formulating comprehending reasonable responses to those questions–much less answering them”.

      Fixed!

      You knew what I meant.

      1. Have you been fixed?

  21. CO2 impact on temperature is logarithmic…thus diminishing returns. Not worried

  22. Real world consensus does not mean a studied consensus. How do I come to that conclusion, from real world examples anecdotal yes but probably an actual item. As a building designer I consult with many people in the trades and building departments. Very often one of these people will say “x” is now required in building or by departments. this from a person who has experience so I trust his opinion so then I incorporate what I’ve been told and others do as well. Eventually someone researches it and says hey this is wrong the code doesn’t say that or something similar. So then some quit doing the assumed correct thing but the myth continues and many still act as if it was required. I’ve seen this happen many times and because of that I assume many scientist in various fields will accept what others have proclaimed without looking at the subject in depth hence you get a consensus just one based on assumptions of others being correct. I think this is how Eugenics became the scientific consensus for a while.

    1. In this case, the 97% number is in fact a “studied consensus.” It’s derived from analysis of papers published regarding climate. It’s reflective of climate scientists, not just scientists.

      1. http://daviddfriedman.blogspot…..k-for.html

        It’s a bag of shit, just admit it.

      2. Jackland Ace- The 97% number came from a study of 11944 peer reviewed papers on climate change and global warming. Of that number 66% gave no opinion towards cause. OF the 34% that did venture an opinion towards cause 32.6% attributed it to mankind and the remainder blamed something else like natural variation. Cook, the author of the study, took the 32.6% and divided by the 34% to arrive at the 97% number. But the error is in claiming that there is a 97% consensus among all climate scientists. The actual consensus is 32.6%. So this presents questions to skeptics such as myself. IF the science is so compelling why resort to subterfuge and deception like this? What he did was just like surveying a large group of NFL players and finding out that 97% like football and then concluding that 97% all sports fans in the world like football.

    2. Exactly. Furthermore, these scientists are not all climatologists and are necessarily taking the word of other scientists. If I remember correctly, some or many of those who agreed to this consensus were not even scientists but were experts in the subject because they write about it in journals.

      What many people don’t consider is that very few scientists actually work for the IPCC. The IPCC of course consults many types of scientists but not all of them agree with the reports. Infact, come have complained that their research results were inaccurately reported by the IPCC in their quadrennial report.

  23. “….Three difference military panels have studied the effects of climate change and concluded that it is a major threat multiplier. This, in military terms, means that it causes economic, political, and military instability leading to wars, terrorism, and related problems.
    In fact, the war in Syria was set off by climate change.
    Not many people have looked at the history, but here is the long story. Climate change caused a massive drought in farming regions of Syria, causing a famine.
    The farmers, starving on their own land, fled to the cities. They demanded food and shelter. The government of Syria ignored them. They did not take that kindly, and resolved, overthrowing the government. The new government was unstable, and chaos reigned. ISIS then used this chaos to establish themselves. This is not to say that ISIS did not exist before the crisis in Syria, only that they took advantage of it. This is what the military means by a threat multiplier.
    As more regions dry out and cannot support life, we will see mass migrations and then conflict between the new refugees and the previous occupants of the countries. Imagine what will happen when Mexico turns into a desert and you get 100,000,000 desperate Mexicans fleeing to the US in search of food. The three military panels I mentioned actually concluded that, with the possible exception of an all out nuclear war with Russia, climate change is the greatest threat facing the US in the coming century.

    1. Cool story, bro. If only it were substantiated by facts.

      Nobody can say with any certainty that a given climate situation was caused by a miniscule increase in temperature. We’re talking about less than 1 ?. This is all speculation, at best. There has always been droughts, and there always will be. AGW cannot be substantiated as the cause of any change in local climate because it can’t yet be fully blamed for global warming. Because there has been eighteen years of a warming pause despite the continued increase in CO2 the correlation between CO2 and temperature is in question.

    2. Good luck here my friend. The military, science, business, and every single science org and country in the world… They’re all on the take. I guess Bailey is as well.

    3. Droughts like the one in Syria have happened before. And the population has exploded nearly tenfold since the last one, so its effects were worse. Global data on drought-trends is not alarming.

    4. There was a ten-year drought in Texas but no civil war. How do you get this correlation? It’s just plain stupid. I don’t care if the pentagon came up with it.

    5. a new moron….golf clap

  24. Is jack a climate scientist? if not, i dont think i can take him at his word since no credentials

    1. I like rock and roll. And the Mets.

      1. case closed

    2. Why would it matter? You would just ignore him like you do all the others.

  25. “…satellite data, ground-based weather stations, sea-based buoys, & even weather balloons reveal a steady long-term warming

    Let’s start with the UAH data, which show a stunning 1.5?F (0.83?C) warming in February 2016 compared to the historical (1981-2010) average for the lower troposphere

    lower tropospheric temperature anomaly, via UAH scientist Roy Spencer.

    How amazing?
    First, remember that the 1981-2010 baseline used by the UAH is itself some 0.8?F (0.45?C) hotter than pre-industrial levels

    Second
    February was more than half a degree Fahrenheit 0.52?F (0.29?C)warmer than January,
    which was “the warmest January in satellite record.”

    Third
    it was so hot last month that Dr. Roy Spencer of the UAH reports,
    “Incredibly, land areas outside the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere were a ‘whopping’ 1.46 degrees C above average, 0.5 degrees above any previous monthly anomaly.”
    This is a 2.6?F warming above the 1981-2010 average, topping the previous anomaly by 0.9?F.
    Lower atmospheric warming over land outside of the tropics (vs. the 1981-2020 average) via UAH scientist Roy Spencer.

    Lower atmospheric warming over land outside of the tropics (vs. the 1981-2020 average) via UAH scientist Roy Spencer.

    Fourth
    so hot last month that Spencer,one of country’s leading climate science deniers, told the Washington Post:

    I’ve always cautioned fellow skeptics that it’s dangerous to claim no warming. There has been warming.

    1. “…a ‘whopping’ 1.46 degrees C above average, 0.5 degrees above any previous monthly anomaly.”

      ‘Whopping’

      Can anyone even detect this small of a difference in temperature? Were it not for themometers, would one even know that the temperature was up 1.46 ??

    2. First, remember that the 1981-2010 baseline used by the UAH is itself some 0.8?F (0.45?C) hotter than pre-industrial levels.

      Really? I didn’t know someone was measuring the lower troposphere temperatures in pre-industrial times. Your an idiot.

  26. It could also be that those who understand how scientific truth is arrived at know it’s not found by consensus. Politics works on consensus, not science…

  27. most climate scientists think it’s a real and urgent problem.

    Scientists aren’t supposed to be making value judgments about what is and isn’t a “problem”. Not in the job description, unless you’re just part of the propaganda arm of the state.

    They’re supposed to be making predictions, and they’re supposed to be accurate. Ooops.

  28. Once conservatives, liberals, and moderates are informed that a scientific consensus on climate change exists, the study concludes,

    What happens when they’re told that when the scientists used their computer models upon which they base their consensus to make predictions, the predictions were all wrong?

    1. Where’s your data? You insist on it from others…and then ignore it of course…

  29. human-caused global warming is happening

    It is! I lit a match just the other day!

  30. Sure, Climate Change (the climate is always changing, and has for 5B years) is happening, if you believe the doctored data that is used to support the bogus Climate Models, and disregard the “consensus” that exists only for the purpose of prying grants out of government agencies and other sources.
    That no one can explain the “pause” and why the sat data doesn’t agree with the ground-station records (adjusted), or can determine yesterday’s temperatures from the model’s data of 100 years ago, goes a long way in explaining why no one who is sentient and doesn’t have an ax to grind, believes in this crisis, and that we are not “warmer” today than we were during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

  31. The researchers also claim that they do not find any evidence for conservative “belief polarization”
    ?that is, a counter-reaction to claims about the consensus that would lead them to believe less strongly in man-made global warming.

    Ron, something you might want to look into for articles like this.

    Edwin Jaynes, the driving force behind Objective Bayesian probabilistic analysis, wrote a short analysis decades ago on how starting with different priors, proper probabilistic analysis can actually cause predictions to *diverge* with the addition of the same evidence, i.e., we disagree, we both get the same new evidence, we both properly analyze it according to our own priors, and our predictions now disagree *more*.

  32. Of course, what almost everybody overlooks is this: Even IF global warming is occurring, and IF it is largely man-made, it still doesn’t follow that the best way of dealing with it is by having the polticians pass laws and regulations. This is the common fallacy that passing laws somehow magically solves problems, and fails to take into account difficult enforcement and compliance issues, not to mention those ever-popular unintended consequences. Government action is not necessarily beneficial or efficacious, and it is a fatal mistake to assume that it is.

  33. Climate will do what climate will do, as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Policy for dealing with it needs to be used on hard facts, not on emotion, or speculation, or opinion polls..

    There are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand at

    hseneker.blogspot.com

    The discussion is too long to post here but is aa quick and easy read. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

    1. Read it… Cool! Way to go!

  34. “global warming” is a pretty tired rendition of “the world is ending”, which was already way played out. are you serious this time, though?

  35. Dr. Raj is a pervert and this- http://journals.plos.org/plosm…..ed.0020124

    1. Charles Manson endorsed Hillary today and she hasn’t disavowed it. and this- http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8…..-is-broken

      1. Bailey, can you fix Science?

      2. fuck off troll.

        1. That’s kinda harsh, man. Plus, I’m half Norwegian so I could easily take your Troll statement as racist. The words “fuck” and “off” seem to be about 20% of your vocabulary. Recovering from the Holocene has been rough on everyone, so I forgive you.

  36. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  37. 97% of climate scientists agree; the other 60% of former or would-be climate scientists have been terminated.

  38. The problem is that advocates of climate change – the “scientists” falsified data early on, and most of the dire predictions (Algore’s “The arctic will be ice-free by 2008(?)”) have failed to materialize.

    Then there are the recent predictions of an imminent ice age.

    In short, there isn’t a consensus – and to the extent there is (in either direction) you can’t believe the data.

  39. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

  40. Basically what they have concluded is that all problems can be solved with more progsplaining to the rest of us. I’m skeptical.

    1. Obstinate and skeptical are not the same thing…

  41. I have read convincing arguments on both sides of the issue. I’m not sure there is global warming but I FEAR there may be.

    Not to plug my own layperson view, but could this be a contributor to warming:

    “Does the ‘fireplace-brick effect’ contribute to global warming?” http://relevantmatters.wordpre…..l-warming/

  42. A true long-range focus would lead us to develop better sources of energy than burning dead plants and animals. The fact is that eventually the climate will change to the point that it is not habitable, whether caused by us or not. We, as a species, must develop the technology to travel to and settle other planets if we wish to survive. Fossil fuels will not get us there. Right now, a combination of nuclear and renewable sources are our best bet to preserve our current habitat and work towards more powerful and efficient sources of energy that can fuel our eventual exodus. Without that focus, our extinction is inevitable.

    1. The fact is that eventually the climate will change to the point that it is not habitable,

      The fact is the Holocene interglacial will end and the ice caps will grow. Before the Holocene the ice caps completely covered what we now know as Canada and extended to completely cover New York City. The great lakes didn’t exist prior to the Holocene interglacial a mere 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. There is also the possibility of a large rock from space ending it all rather abruptly.

      Here is some more facts for you. The pre-industrial CO2 levels were at 285 ppm, at 150 ppm plant life would cease to exist.

      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss…..age277.gif

      Right now, a combination of nuclear and renewable sources are our best bet…

      The only “renewable sources” that are worth anything is hydro. Wind and solar are worthless due to the fact that they are fundamentally intermittent and cannot be scheduled. Also, nuclear can supply base load but has difficulty following peak loads. Wind and solar can supply neither.

  43. before I saw the paycheck that said $8517 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like realy bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there uncles cousin started doing this 4 only ten months and as of now cleard the mortgage on there villa and bourt a gorgeous Saab 99 Turbo . learn this here now…

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~[] http://www.workreport30.com

  44. What is not being reported is that engineers – who deal with WORKING science – are the most sceptical of Global warming.

    1. Are they? Get me that study, or survey, so I can see where that is reported. Thanks.

      1. Most Geoscientists and Engineers are Global Warming skeptics

        The relevant papers are linked here

        BTW the engineers are material engineers (mechanical, electrical, etc). Software guys will believe anything.

        1. Thanks MS. I Will read it.

        2. M, this article by Nova refers to the same exact study That the Taylor article you refer to below does. Taylor got it wrong, and so does Nova. Read my response below.

        1. A word of caution. You may want to read the actual study first rather than accept Taylor’s headline. He is way off.

          In the first place, it wasn’t a survey of “scientists,” it was a survey of only scientists in the petroleum industry. So any conclusion regarding all scientists is completely wrong.

          Secondly, go read the results. The total of those scientists from petroleum industry that say climate change is due almost entirely to man, or to a combination of man and nature (which climate scientists will say is true) is 58%, the majority. The largest group of respondents at 36% was those who said almost entirely man. In contrast 26% said all nature.

          And that is from scientists in the petroleum industry. I wonder what scientists in renewable industry would say? Might be best to stay with climate scientists.

          1. Fixing it to apply to the “consensus”.

            In the first place, it wasn’t a survey of “scientists,” it was a survey of only scientists in the petroleum industry living off the government teat. So any conclusion regarding all scientists is completely wrong.

            See how that works? I am sure the irony escapes Jackand.

            1. No irony. Any consensus to be drawn from it is that it would be a consensus of petroleum scientists. Just like the study cited say it’s a consensus of climate scientists.

              By the way, if you want to draw s conclusion of the concensus of petroleum scientists, it’s that man owns part of the responsibility for changing our climate.

              Got it?

              1. By the way, if you want to draw s conclusion of the concensus of petroleum scientists, it’s that man owns part of the responsibility for changing our climate.

                Unlike you I don’t draw conclusions from the opinion of any scientist. I do what anybody that is interested in the truth would do. I look at the evidence. Something you apparently are unable to do.

                The irony clearly escaped Jackand.

                Any consensus to be drawn from it is that it would be a consensus of petroleum scientists. Just like the study cited say it’s a consensus of climate government funded scientists.

                Jackand thinks it is okay to be skeptical of scientist that income is derived from private enterprise but should accept at face value those whose income comes from the taxpayers. All of Jackand’s faulty logic is destroyed by a very similar “consensus” call Eugenics. The poor idiot can’t see he is making the same arguments that Eugenics used to prop up a theory that lacks evidence.

                1. Again, enjoy your weekend!

                  1. Again, enjoy your weekend!

                    Translation: My programming is overloaded with contradiction … must shut down.

                2. Unlike you I don’t draw conclusions from the opinion of any scientist. I do what anybody that is interested in the truth would do. I look at the evidence.

                  ^^^This^^^

                  Trouble is there are so many causes and effects that they are difficult to untangle. Engineers do that all the time. I’m an engineer (aerospace electronics).

                  1. Trouble really is that specialists outside their specialty are not much better than a layman depending on how much time they spend studying a topic. I’ll stick with those who are published and have done actual research.

        2. By the way, you should note that the authors of the study say this on the conclusion, which they clearly agree with

          Climate change could irreversibly affect future generations and, as such, is one of the most urgent issues facing organizations (Hoffman, 2007; Porter & Reinhardt, 2007).”

          They framed the entire study around the Kyoto Protocols ( that’s how old it is), and he point was that those who might get negatively influenced by policy might have different opinions than those who don’t (those in other fields of science). And yet…still…even those scientists are saying man is changing the climate.

          1. “Those that get natativel inflenced by policy always complain.”

            Look at the medical industry relationship to cannabis.

            Best is to have no policy or minimal policy. You know. Small government. That way the INs can’t resist the OUTs as much.

        3. Read it for yourself

          http://m.oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

          One mistake I made. The number who said nature only was the cause was 24%, not 26%.

  45. Interesting how eKoStatists try to use sociology to prove the physics about which they don’t have a clue .

  46. China. What are you going to do about China?

    Hell what are you going to do about Europe? Coal production is up in Europe. Being right minded folk they hate fracking and nuclear.

    1. China is already working toward their commitments.

      “Today’s news follows China’s promise of a three-year moratorium on all new coal mines. The country also plans to shutter 1,000 existing coal mines this year alone, with deeper cuts to come. All of this has been accompanied by massive investments in wind and solar that have made the country’s renewable energy firms world-leaders in clean power.”

      1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03…..-down.html

        Coal use has dropped in China because the country’s economic growth has slowed considerably in recent years. The government is also enacting policies to curb coal use in large population centers in eastern China, to bring down extraordinary levels of air pollution.

        You don’t seriously believe they are shutting them down for climate change do you? Also from the article:

        The surplus of plants is not expected to result in a big surge in coal use, since the slowing economy is the main reason consumption has fallen.

        Bottom line is they created to much capacity, now they have to shut it down.

        1. Capacity is on reason, according to the article. Another is their commitment to reduce Carbon emissions.

          I’m more concerned what we will do, since I live here. But the idea that they aren’t do anything, or that they won’t, is belied by the facts.

          1. Capacity is on reason, according to the article. Another is their commitment to reduce Carbon emissions.

            You don’t seriously believe if they needed them they would be shutting them down do you? Funny how until the economic downturn they were planning to build even more coal plants, essentially saying fuck the climate. Now they don’t need the power plants and are all of sudden concerned with the climate. I have a bridge to sell you. The “reduce carbon emissions” is propaganda that conveniently fits the situation.

            1. The fact is, China has a carbon emissions problem. Even greater than the one we have. The air pollution they have in large portions of the country is a national scandal that the government has finally come to grips with. The people themselves are demanding action, and the government is responding.

              I’ll put it this way…if the GOP gains control of all portions of the federal government, we will do even less than anything China will do. Hence why I’m more concerned with things here.

              1. The fact is, China has a …

                No, the fact is you didn’t answer the question. Do you seriously believe if the Chinese needed the the power plants they would be shutting them down?

              2. No, China has a particulate problem caused by central planning and desertification caused by poverty. Thanks for playing.

                1. You’re Welcome!

          2. So you don’t believe in a well-mixed atmosphere? Explains your scientology.

      2. I didn’t realize that coal mines intentionally burned coal.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11…..olicy.html

  47. Maybe consensus arguments fail for other reasons, explained in this post…

    Manufacturing(?) consensus
    by Judith Curry

    The nugget:

    The consensus claim thus seems to be primarily aimed at non-scientists, and in particular (I assert, somewhat speculatively) constitutes an appeal to authority. In this representation of the FAR, audiences are being invited to credit the assessment not because of its epistemic grounding, but because of the social fact of who wrote it. . . Whereas non-experts almost by definition are unable to assess an expert’s reasoning, they may be well capable of judging social facts, such as whether some procedures were inclusive. To adapt a phrase of Collins & Pinch, where we might find it impossible to assess scientists on scientific grounds, we can instead assess them on the same everyday, pragmatic grounds we trust plumbers.

    1. That isn’t explaining why concensus arguments “fail.” That explains why they exist. She’s right.. We aren’t climate scientists, so we turn to them for their opinion. Just like we do to medical doctors and maybe choose what most doctors tell us. Or as she concludes with, plumbers.

      Kind of like when someone says science isn’t conducted by consensus. Exactly right, it’s not. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

      1. No, it means that it’s irrelevant.

      2. You know what Einstein said on the matter? “It only takes ONE.

        Consensus in science is (add your own epithet here).

        1. And Einstein was always looking for facts that would falsify his theory. So he could make a better one.

        2. Consensus.

        3. Consensus is for people who won’t or can’t draw conclusions from the data. And for those that want to, you hide or adjust the data.

      3. As an experienced engineer with expertise in instrumentation, calibration, data collection, and interpretation. I will judge for myself if the climate work is on a sound foundation of data. To date, I have not found that sound foundation.

        Often I find that the kind of data required is unavailable due to technical limitations, the evolution of instrumentation, or changes in the ambient environment the instrumentation has been located in. This issues are not the researchers fault, but the attempts to extrapolate beyond the limits of the data to produce hard conclusions is unscientific and unprofessional.

        It is often clear the the researchers are will aware of their inappropriate and deceptive practices and attempt to shield themselves from detection by withholding the raw data and complete methodology. These actions only reinforce my doubts about the conclusions the claim as “consensus”.

        1. So which of the mountains of data (and research papers) accumulated over the last couple decades did you have an issue with?

  48. This push poll is absolutely shameless as well as worthless. What exactly do those 97% of (which?) “scientists” believe? That the totality of human activity has some effect on long term climate? That increasing human caused CO2 emissions enough to increase the troposphere from 400 to 800 ppm CO2 will increase average global temperatures (measured by RSS or UAH microwave satellites between 20 North to 20 South latitude) by 3-4 degrees C by 2116?

  49. This push poll is absolutely shameless as well as worthless. What exactly do those 97% of (which?) “scientists” believe? That the totality of human activity has some effect on long term climate? That increasing human caused CO2 emissions enough to increase the troposphere from 400 to 800 ppm CO2 will increase average global temperatures (measured by RSS or UAH microwave satellites between 20 North to 20 South latitude) by 3-4 degrees C by 2116?

  50. We aren’t climate scientists, so we turn to them for their opinion.

    Not we, you. Climate science is multi-disciplined. People who are claimed to be “climate scientist” usually have a degree in physics, chemistry, mathematics, statistics, geology, or biology. Some may have several degrees but none have degrees in all the disciplines that make up climate science. The advanced degrees, such as their PHD’s, are usually narrowly focused study on some sub discipline of their bachelor degree. Clearly a ‘climate scientist’, who’s basic training is in physics, is not in any position to access the validity of a atmospheric chemist work. While at the same time a non ‘climate science’ chemist has the fundamental knowledge to question.

    Notably much, if not most, of what passes for climate science requires the use of statistics. If you look long and hard you will be hard pressed to find many papers that involve a statistician as one of the authors. Steve McIntyre was criticized for his take down of Mann’s hockey stick because he wasn’t a “climate scientist”. It didn’t mater that Steve’s statistical analysis was dead on, he wasn’t part of the “climate scientist” club.

    1. Me indeed.

  51. What exactly is “climate science” anyway? I’m more inclined to listen to someone who is a top scientist, period. When someone like Freeman Dyson doesn’t believe the hype (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…..interview/), that’s good enough for me. Real sciences tend not to have the word “science” in their name.

    1. That’s one way to look at it, and one particular scientist that you can listen to. Enjoy!

    2. Pssst…it’s Climatology.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climatology

      Sometimes people might refer to it as climate science, just like they might say biological sciences. It’s still biology. It’s still climatology.

      At least you can consider it now, right?

    3. Also known as cherry picking… Don’t let the facts get in your way.

  52. Ah, more low quality studies with specious claims, invisible raw data (with the lack of independent validation that goes with it), politicized marketing. Oh wait, just like the climate research itself!

  53. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

  54. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  55. my friend’s sister-in-law makes $85 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21785 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at this web-site….
    Clik this link in Your Browser

    ??????????? http://www.Wage90.com

  56. The Petition Project was circulated by Petr Beckman and by one of my astronomy profs, among others. On it some 30.000 people with science degrees urge not subsidizing Red China per the Kyoto flimflam. The Real Science blog provides constant updates on the fraud perpetrated by fellow travellers, econazi fanatics and ex-scientists. Genuine, practicing, degreed scientists are mostly unimpressed by the alarum but apprehensive of its shrillness.

  57. Equating ‘scientific opinion’ on the issue with ‘the opinion of climate scientists’ is a big part of the problem. Ask a geologist whether he thinks it makes sense to claim that a return to the climatic conditions that prevailed between 2.5 and 250 million years ago–no polar ice caps, no glaciers to speak of, no 200+ degree Fahrenheit temperature differential between the poles and equator, no place on earth where animals like polar bears and musk oxen and reindeer could survive–is all our fault. Ask a meteorologist whether talking about ‘causality’ in a complex/chaotic system where we can’t even know if we know all the factors involved makes any sense at all. Only ask them off the record; they know if they went public with their views, they’d never get another research grant from the federal monopsony in their lives.

  58. Yeah… no. Calling B.S.

  59. “According to a new study by the Princeton psychologist Sander van der Linden and his colleagues, Republicans doubt man-made global warming largely because that they don’t know most climate scientists think it’s a real and urgent problem.”

    I don’t care what “climate scientists” “think”. I care about the accuracy of their predictions, their validity of their methods, and what they can actually prove using the same standards that other practitioners of hard-science are expected to observe. So far they’ve given me no reason to regard them as anything other than superstitious opportunistic frauds.

    1. Climate is inherently chaotic…predicting some aspects is literally impossible

  60. What would be the opinion of the “great unwashed” if they were told that 97% of Climate “Scientists” make a good living from climate hysteria?

    1. It depends on how much of their work is fabricated and not actual work.

      You know, like that proxy data is just stuff they had a lab tech make up while they were at the strip club..except thats probably not happening lol

      You faulty nozzel!

  61. Perhaps one of you partisans, far more educated on this subject, can tell me what part of global warming is caused by man? I think it would be helpful to know this.

    1. 60% of it….for now

  62. Wooaa…Speak for your self. I am a liberal and I am prowarming. I do not like the “natural” climate.

    I wish CO2 was a decent answer for my desires..to no avail. It will not warm things much for my children 5 generations from now.

    I will stop “wanting” a “warmer” climate when I have a space vehicle and a comparatively advanced house. Then you people can have your ice age, and I won’t care how cold it is.

  63. Oh..a point about “scientific consensus”

    Historically, how many scientific consensuses were wrong and ultimately overturned?

    For example, wasn’t the “scientific consensus ” on flight that it was impossible for humans to fly?

    Not saying the 50 year old science of climate is wrong or anything like that 😉

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.