Image: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Scientific Visualization Studio
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
As glaciers melt and island populations retreat from their coastlines to escape rising seas, many scientists remain baffled as to why the global research consensus on human-induced climate change remains contentious in the U.S.
The frustration revealed itself during a handful of sessions at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., this past weekend, coming to a peak during a Friday session, "Science without Borders and Media Unbounded".
Near the forum’s conclusion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel asked a panel of journalists why the media continues to cover anthropogenic climate change as a controversy or debate, when in fact it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association and the National Research Council, along with the national academies of more than two dozen countries.
"You haven't persuaded the public," replied Elizabeth Shogren of National Public Radio. Emanuel immediately countered, smiling and pointing at Shogren, "No, you haven't." Scattered applause followed in the audience of mostly scientists, with one heckler saying, "That's right. Kerry said it."
Such a tone of searching bewilderment typified a handful of sessions that dealt with the struggle to motivate Americans on the topic of climate change. Only 35 percent of Americans see climate change as a serious problem, according to a 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
It's a given that an organized and well-funded campaign has led efforts to confuse the public regarding the consensus around anthropogenic climate change.
And in the absence of such a campaign, as in South Korea, there is no doubt about the findings of climate science, said Sun-Jin Yun of Seoul National University. All three of the nation's major newspapers—representing conservative, progressive and business perspectives—accept climate change with little unjustified skepticism.
Still, it is hard to explain the intransigence of the U.S. public and policy-makers on the issue.
Explanations abound: Is it the media? Under-education? Denialism?
Tom Rosenstiel of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism pointed at the media, focusing on its overall contraction in the past two decades. Shrinking budgets have led to a proliferation of quick, cheap reporting, as well as discussion and commentary formats that rarely provide informative discussions of actual science results.
"What is shrinking is the reportorial component of our culture in which people go out and find things and verify things," he said. Truth has little chance to make itself known in the new narrow and shallow public square.
Poll after poll, and even late night TV talk shows, seem to revel in Americans’ ignorance of basic scientific facts, including the fundamentals of physics and biology.
Is this "science information deficit model" then the reason for our failure to accept climate change? Naomi Oreskes, a University of California, San Diego, science historian rejected that hypothesis during one of the sessions on denialism. "It's quite clear there are many highly educated people who do not accept global warming," she said. Still, scientists "must communicate climate science as clearly and effectively and robustly as we can," she added.
The current political and cultural context drive the nation's denialism around climate change, evolution and vaccines, said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, during a session. Education and scientific literacy and general intelligence levels are not causing the problem.
Meanwhile, most Americans in fact are ignorant of the facts of climate science and even "confuse climate change with the ozone hole," Schmidt remarked. The processes around the latter's disappearance are related to global warming but "how is that a basis for having any sensible conversation?" he asked.
Solutions: Smart talking and media mastery
Surveys show that most people want more information about climate science, Schmidt said, so scientists should engage in public forums such as blogs, question-and-answer sessions and public talks, provided they are not simply stacked with angry debaters.
Scientists must engage with the public and be vigilant against projecting stereotypes of their profession—such as the elitist, arrogant scientist, Schmidt said.
Rosenstiel echoed this advice and further urged scientists to bypass the media, who are no longer critical intermediaries for reaching the public given the growth of the blogosphere and the general fragmentation of the industry.
He advised scientists similarly to make sure their points are very clear and to avoid giving climate deniers an opportunity to extract a phrase from ones communications or answers to questions that fits an anti-science theme.
In fact, Thomas Lessl of the University of Georgia called science communications "naive" and said the entire enterprise of communicating science about climate change needed to be reformed. More information will not help. "Personal knowledge always trumps technical knowledge in public communication," he said.
Some of Rosenstiel's advice recalled Lessl's observation when he reminded the audience that interviews are entirely on the record and that they are not conversations. "One way of doing that is to be like a politician and answer what you want to answer and not answer fully what they have asked," he advised. Also, "if you feel the question is loaded, give them the answer that you would have given if the question were not loaded."
NASA's Schmidt suggested that further public engagement to fill the gaps in understanding between soundbites and scientific literature would be useful, but that there are no guarantees.
M.I.T.'s Emanuel offered a familiar explanation for why some scientists are allergic to public forums: "There's an attitude in our culture that if we're doing outreach...we may be engaging in a kind of advocacy that is poisonous to science."
Despite the concerns, optimism prevailed regarding the role of journalists and scientists in better communicating climate change in the future. There will be more reporting and it will be more accurate in the future, but the current media landscape may be the ultimate decider, Emanuel noted.
"Fourth estate reporting will get better," he added. "The fact that we're here today is an indicator of that. At the same time, the availability of the Internet soapbox will ensure that the amount of background noise will go up. I don't see any way of preventing that."
See what we're tweeting about
133 Comments
Add CommentThere is also an additional issue not covered in the article above: Climate change has been hijacked by alarmists and politicians, which resulted in too high expectations regarding the level of knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertain conjectures have been represented as truths. There is a field of science (yes, economics is a science), where we have seen a similar situation: economics. There Keynesian economics was presented as a perfect medicine for the economic problems such as unemployment. Later research showed some critical flaws in the basic ideas of Keynes, which is nothing more that the way science should develop. Keynesian economics is not dead; the good parts have been retained and the poor parts are being replaced. There is no need to abolish it. The analogy with climate science is that we as scientists should be aware that the knowledge we posses is quite limited. Modern science is young in historical terms and the best is yet to come. So by suggesting that we "know" climate change (we don't, not for 100%) we are creating expectations we cannot live up to. We have learned a lot, and we know that the climate is changing. We also know that it has changed in the past and will continue to change in the future. There is sufficient evidence for that. But how and why is very much open (which for us should be good). The implication for communicating scientific insights is that we need to be sure to communicate the caveats in an understandable way, without doing to much harm to the central tenets of the discovery.
TL;DR Learn from earlier experiences in the communication of scientific research on complex systems: Do not create expectations you can not live up to and be modest about what you actually know.
I suggest part of the reason might be poor articles like this which seem to continually repeat themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps it would be more profitable to consider the time scales which concern people. A time scale which says things are going to get bad in 100 years doesn't mean much when other projections are saying that global population will start falling in 40 years.
Also people can see that measures to reduce CO2 emissions are in place and will continue and also things like wind farms, tidal power plants etc. are already being built.
Why worry?
If scientists do not come out of their shell and start communicating with the common person on a level that they can understand, the media is going to destroy you. The old TV show 'Dragnet' would be a good place for you to start, "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts." Because of the financial problems and uneducated editors, the written media is the worst place for you to deliver your information. TV and the internet is your best friend. Create your own TV station and make it local so everyone, no matter the means they use: cable, dish or antenna, can pick up your station and deliver the people the means so they can communicate with you on the internet if they have questions about your presentations or want to see your research or present it in their media. You will have total control in whom you present your research. This way, you can present your proof without worrying about the media distorting your research or attacking your credibility. You may even get the most needed funding you need to continue your research. There are a lot of people out there, like President Obama, who loves science and would fund your projects that show great potential. But before they can do that, they have to know what you are doing and understand its importance. And you can do that with, "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps it is not that we are ill-informed, it is that we are not convinced. Science is not done by consensus, it is done by discovery. Too much of the "data" presented is questionable in its quality,or is a "model" which is not data but is supposition. Worldwide phenomenon that are truly scientific, are as undeniable as gravity and chemistry. Man made "Climate Change" is neither of these. Try to get us good data, don't try to convince us that we are just ignorant. You sound like the US President who doesn't think we disagree with him, his message just wasn't well explained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not a deficit in understanding. Nor is it bad reportage. It isn't that scientists do not communicate or educators educate. It is that the media are controlled and biased by oligarchs who have interests in disinformation and manipulation. As noted, when this does not happen, reporters report correctly, and scientists are heard. So long as the media are unregulated and cannot be taken to task for giving every astroturf PR talking point an airing as if it were as reliable as science, nobody will believe anything that the ruling class do not want heard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjswilkins, have I got this straight? The press only disseminate what the "ruling class" want them to, and therefore you want the regulated? And who makes the regulationa? The "ruled class"????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStephenSouthamptonUK:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Also people can see that measures to reduce CO2 emissions are in place and will continue and also things like wind farms, tidal power plants etc. are already being built."
The measures are inadequate. CO2 emissions need to fall quite significantly in order to stop or slow CO2 increase, yet CO2 emissions have actually increased in recent years. At long as this continues CO2 rise in the atmosphere will accelerate, not just increase linearly.
Surely the question is "Why is Scientific American so ill-informed on "climate change"?" as it continually uses that term and 'global warming' as if they were the same thing (hardly needs an Einstein to explain why they are not in any way equivalent) and has been totally sucked into the complete myth that science has anything at all to do with consensus. If consensus was in the least bit convincing as an argument we'd still be trying to track down phlogiston, measure the ether, and prescribing cigarettes as a good cold preventative. A rational/reasonable/compelling argument is not now, nor has it ever been, the same thing as 'what most rational/reasonable/compelling think. Science is not a democracy in which we're asked to vote for the theory we like best irrespective of whether it can be proven or not. Nor is it a tyranny in which we can be told what to think. If anyone is not convinced it is because the evidence is not conclusive and the speculation is, well, speculation (and usually the worst kind of speculation - catastrophism!) If the evidenced is there then present it unequivocated. If it is not (and largely it is not!) then fess up and go get it the good old fashioned way - repeatable experiment!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter viewing the climate change misinformation and other misinformation campaigns it seems apparent to me that the only thing we can do is raise taxes at the top so that propaganda can't be funded. We had an election in my state and there was so much misinformation spread by junk mail, robo calls and even text messaging. It is obvious that some people have way too much money and are using it for evil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne major reason is that the last two generations of Americans are woefully ignorant of science and easily influenced by propagandists, religionists and the politically motivated. Until we elevate the pursuit of knowledge and science we will be stuck dealing with the "unwashed" being manipulated by the pols.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican readers may be unfamiliar with a series of articles written by Lawrence Solomon for Canada's National Post, which started appearing in 2006 and eventually became the basis for a book entitled "the Deniers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin his articles, Solomon discusses the work of many scientists who have not been co-opted into the global warming "consensus".
because these articles appeared in conservative newspaper, it was widely assumed that Solomon must be some sort of shill for Big Business and/or the Petrochemical industry. in fact, he is a respected environmentalist and the founder of Energy Probe.
his articles are well worth reading and may be accessed here...
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
Solomon has some comments specific to the perceived "consensus"; they may be accessed here...
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/
it has been argued, with some validity, that climate "deniers" are somehow comparable to HIV deniers (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Numbers ) and creationists. the charge is, that like the latter two groups, climate deniers chip away at the details of theory they attack without offering a cohesive, supportable alternative.
perhaps this is true. nevertheless, Solomon's writing gives us pause to wonder to what degree climate consensus is manufactured consensus.
i'm old enough to remember when climate scientists "agreed" that we were heading into another ice age!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1998AtlanticClimate.htm
curmudgeon: "If consensus was in the least bit convincing as an argument we'd still be trying to track down phlogiston, measure the ether"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe consensus today is that neither ether nor phlogiston exist. That is a convincing argument to me. If the experts have studied yet are not convinced in something, then I am not convinced either. I'll wait for them to change their minds en masse before I change mine. The only way I would ever hold a view contrary to a scientific consensus is if I considered myself expert enough on a subject to analyze it as well as the experts can and so have my own differing view. I suspect a lot of people think like this too which is why knowing what the consensus in a field is, is important to convey to the public.
From my experience there are three parts to this problem. First is the incredible ignorance and irrational thinking of the american people. Second is the evil institutions that exploit this weakness. Third is the distrust of government. The ignorance of the people is well documented. As stated in the article, they don't even understand the basics let alone complex issues such as climate. It is not hard to understand why. The media is full of idiot heroes, while intelligent characters are depicted as nerds or villains. The poor level of education comes down to the greed and selfishness of american right wing politics. The top wage earns have no interest in contributing to the education of america's children yet they are happy to exploit the fruits of the education system when hiring employees. Short term thinking prevents them from seeing that business benefits from an educated population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion being irrational is worse than being ignorant. If you are rational you can always learn something new and overcome your ignorance. But if you are irrational then chances are the only thing you will learn is what you want to believe. I've read articles from religious nuts who home school their children advising parents not to teach critical thought because it creates "free thinkers". Of course the american government is no fan of logic either as people would soon learn how they're being manipulated so an ignorant population is easier to rule.
Special interest lobbies have exploited america's limited mental capacity to advance their agenda, whether that is creationism or denying AGW. Without intellectual tools the american people will believe whatever they are already primed to believe. Their distrust of the government and fear for their jobs means they will gladly follow anyone who offers them a simplistic world view. There is no lack of bad actors that are glad to point the finger at others to blame them for the failings of the american people whether that is immigrants or scientists it doesn't matter.
In order for there to be change the US needs to change its education system to include critical thought. But this won't happen. The power elite benefits too much from american ignorance. Like parents who blackmail their children into being good with threats of no presents from Santa. The fact is, the world is becoming one ruled by science and technology. The US is already declining in both these areas. Eventually it will sink into irrelevance under the intellectual dead weight of its people.
Hmm...I sense a serious case of sock-puppetry here. Perhaps the admins should be checking out the IPs behind the posters in this thread.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeanwhile, in answer to the puppet brigade, it isn't "dogmatic" science, nor is it a lack of facts on the ground. You can go straight to the USGS and NASA to see raw data on the climate (temperature, ice cover, cloud cover, CO2 emissions, etc.) and validate the points being made.
That you are ideologically bound to a principle that flies in the face of reality is the problem. The world owes you no kudos for adopting an idiotic world-view - that's your own fault.
Well cheers, I guess; being an actual European American and all (in Berlin).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe nvdbeek: yes and no.
Yes, the knowledge surrounding climate change is a slippery beast, and other fields of highly complex research are confronted with comparable problems of weighting information, making sense of it and deriving probabilities from it.
And no. The changing climate justifies alarm. And the high probability that it is man-made justifies a resolute call to action. The certainties that many of you seem to demand before more is done will not be forthcoming. (Again, economics seems a great example - a dearth of certainty and constant pressure to do something...)
Anyway, seen from outside the US, it boggles the mind how a minority amongst scientists (especially amongst scientists in relevant fields not beholden to fossil-fuel and related industries) so tiny as to render itself crackpot can be construed as nearly even weight in the general (US) media.
Even if you take into account the stark, simplistic approach that pervades much of US news reporting, and the propensity to define news in terms of sports and gamesmanship, from a European (German) point of view, it seems just ludicrous.
And the fact that corporate America has such a huge influence on what Americans get to see of the(ir) world is a thought that is hard to avoid in this context.
Finally, what might make the whole issue especially hard for Americans to swallow, is that if the is a problem (which, again, is highly probable and will never be certain until it has truly arrived, if then), they will be the largest part of it. No other nation has, up until now, had the same kind of (probably) destructive influence. And that might just be hurtful to fess up to.
Robert - you hit the nail on the head.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those who keep harping on how science is not concensus, let me first say that no one is claiming it is. However, the science of climate change is more alike to medicine than some of the "hard" sciences. It IS a complex system. If it was not, we would have an open and shut case by now, with the amazing amount of data that has been collected over the past decades.
So climate science will always bracket the data they have on hand with error ranges, and these are then used to drive models, which in turn generate their own error bars. nvdbeek is correct. However soon after his admission that we can't be 100% confident - the statement is co-opted by others to try to say we don't know much at all. Baloney. We know quite a bit. Enough to make some preditions, albeit with large ranges (2 to 5 degrees over the next 100 years is not so hot). But with few exceptions, all predictions point to warmer temps, and these predicitons are driven by the impact people have on our planet.
It is akin to going to the doctor and getting the bad news you have cancer, and you have 1 year to live. You get many opinions, and while they all make different estimates on your time left without treatment, they all agree you will die. You eventually find a doctor who thinks you maybe don't have cancer.
For those who are deniers (by this, I mean someone who has been convinced of a position, and no additional evidence or information will sway their position) - they are saying they will ingore 9 out of 10 doctors' opinions in favor of the off change the 10th might be right.
So while the science is not driven by concensus - those outside of the science must rely on it to some degree to get some confidence this is not an outlier scientific position - before they make hard decisions.
This article misses the key point--which speaks directly to a lack of understanding among biophysical scientists of the social sciences. All human change occurs in stages. People start out disinterested in new information that requires a change in thinking and behavior and then, if proper communications mechanisms are used, move stage by stage to understanding and engagement. People must complete different internal processes in each stage of change to move to the next stage. Thus, different forms of communications are needed when speaking to people in each stage. Few climate scientists seem to understand this and thus keep framing their communications in ways that speak only to the people in the later stages of change--while turning off those in the early stages of change (the vast majority of the public). So I suggest that climate scientists quit blaming the public or media for not getting it and learn something about effective communications.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBob Doppelt
@nvdbeek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome things you say don't track well. For instance,
"Climate change has been hijacked by alarmists and politicians,..."
This is odd because most of what I've seen is that the scientists want to say one thing, and the politicians say that is too scary and change it.
Re: Keynes and economics,
So, Keynes did not have a perfect model for economics; therefore, those studying the physical world of radiative transfer, etc. must be wrong as well. Nope, that just doesn't track.
@StephenSouthamptonUK,
If effective policies to reduce CO2 emissions are already in place, why does the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere continue to accelerate?
@Drzakowski,
It appears you are saying that you don't know much about science, but you are sure they are wrong. I see.
@zsingerb,
A lot of the data are freely available; all the raw data that NASA uses are. Yet, no one has ever used that raw data to effectively show where NASA has made errors that change the conclusions. Why is that?
@curmudgeon,
Repeatable experiment? Sure, please feel free to create a couple dozen disposable earth's so we can run these experiments. While you are at it, please freeze time so that we can figure this out before we get any deeper into the hole we've dug. In fact BAU is an experiment itself, and you are claiming that changing the thermodynamic properties of the earth will have no effects. How would you substantiate that conclusion?
OK, moving forward.
@Robert Schmidt,
I think you hit it pretty close.
I'll add a few thoughts:
How much of the average person's income goes toward the fossil fuel industry? Count in the energy to commute to work, the energy to heat/cool the buildings we live in, and produce the food we eat and the goods we consume. Whatever the precise amount is, it is a significant portion of our income.
In order to mitigate climate change, we have to phase out fossil fuel consumption almost entirely. Those that are collecting all that fossil fuel money have an interest in continuing to collect it; and they have enough to exert a lot of influence.
Nothing really bad has happened to Americans for generations; so, there is a tendency to think that nothing really bad can happen to us. In contrast, my relatives in NZ suffer some direct effects of ozone depletion, and they don't need to understand radiative physics and ocean chemistry in order to know they're better off not mucking with the climate.
@BobDoppelt, I agree the scientific community needs to communicate more clearly but that doesn't excuse the deliberate misinformation campaign by the media and special interest. It also does not excuse the american people for their lazy thinking and conspiracy theories. The US is supposed to be a democracy, which means the people are supposed to take responsibility for their decisions. If the american people allow themselves to be led by liars and con men it is their fault. It is not the fault of the scientific community for not hitting them over the head with the facts until they get them through their thick skulls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Ildenizen hit in on the head with his analogy about cancer and doctors, except it would be better stated that it's 97 out of 100 doctors and the other three are suggesting taking up a four pack a day smoking habit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those arguing about lack of certainty, it's called statistics, you'll never get 100%, but 95 or 99% is good enough for me. As a PhD chemist who taught undergrads, I was amazed at the level of mis-understanding of both probability, and basic chemistry. The evidence for climate change on a basic level is incontrovertible, the experiments have been repeated in the lab numerous times, and the refinement of the models, tested against historical data continues. It is willful ignorance, yes willful, and fear of change that leads people to grasp at the straws that maybe it isn't so bad.
I highly recommend http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php to check your arguments before you post.
Solid science stands on its own regardless of the source of funding. Of all the billions of dollars that the coal companies make, do you think they might have thought to spend a million or two on research that clearly demonstrates where the majority of climate researchers around the world have gone wrong?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it were possible to do that, they'd get to keep making money and the researchers would be a shoo-in for a Nobel. Yet instead, we get add campaigns about "clean" coal and huge over-estimates of how much it would cost to quit buying their product. Why is that?
Robert Schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo question there has been a disinformation campaign--but there is nothing new here. It's common and expected in any social system---people (especially those with a vested interest in the status quo) push back when threatened by information that requires a change in thinking or behavior (or loss of power). The key question is how to overcome this. Blaming lazy people won't do it. It is the communicators job to provide information in a frame that addresses the stages of change people are in. Until climate scientists understand this we will remain mired in the blame game and make little progress.
Climate Changers need to spend more time reporting the facts and justifing their theories. Give prominent scientist with opposing views an opportunity to speak. People rightly see an agenda behind your science. Get rid of those proselytizers, like the one who wrote this articlce. For example those comments from deniers seem much more articulate, intelligent and persuasive than those of the article and supporters. I just get the feeling that those that believe in climate change don't have much going on upstairs. I would expect to see such a brain dead article in the mass media but in Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's so nice to see the paid corporate shills here in force, posting think tank talking points word for word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the rest of you, I'm dismayed you've missed the number one reason that most Americans are having a hard time buying anthropogenic climate change: it's because Americans know that they bear the lion's share of guilt for what's already happened, and they will have to bear the large brunt of any remedies that occur.
We have a romantic ideal of the Great American Roadtrip, the dirt-bike weekend, the boat on the weekends, the ice-cold AC at the movie theater. Even those of us who don't have time or money for roadtrips or even movies still cherish that vision. The thought that we might have to give those things up is shocking enough to even me that I live in denial that my own contribution amounts to much.
I don't know if I have much advice, except to bear in mind that you're not just fighting against innocent ignorance befuddled by a massive propaganda machine, you're fighting against our very hopes and dreams and vision of ourselves, about what it means to be an American.
The problem is not communicating facts. Facts don't win hearts. Dreams win hearts. Someone needs to give Americans a new dream, and I'm not sure that scientists or journalists are up to the task.
According to your post and argument, which I have seen replicated time and time again, if there is something that we need to be alarmed about, then there is no way for scientists to get this message out. Essentially, you are just saying that there is nothing to worry about and you just want them to stop saying that there is something wrong. You have rationalized this by thinking that scientists get funding by being more 'alarmist', but this is just a gut feeling that you have and isn't based on the kind of verifiable evidence that you have demanded of climate science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate scientists have done the research. They have done experiments. They have gathered the data. The science has progressed as it has through history, but the average undergraduate is equipped with tomes of information that exceeds the collective knowledge of science last century. I've read the peer-reviewed science and the reams of data, results, and expert interpretation clearly identify a signature of warming and a physical basis for climate change by means of greenhouse gases released by our collective industrial enterprise.
The problem is not one of accepting or belief, this is not a prerequisite for understanding a philosophy. The problem is that the concept maps of those who speak against anthropogenic climate change conveys a great many wrongs and inconsistencies, which is clear enough evidence that they do not understand the science. If they can demonstrate an understanding of the science and then launch an attack, then this is when it actually leads to a productive dialogue. Your post is a case in point - it is a simple replication of a kind of post I have seen hundreds of times.
It is clear that you don't know how to differentiate fact from theory or a hypothesis from a hunch. Facts and theories are different things and I've encountered people like you who rebut with - oh, it's just a theory - as though a theory is something small, petty, and of lesser value than facts. This is a misconception and you are replicating it precisely. Like it or not, you are ill-informed because you are unable to demonstrate an understanding of your foe. Try to understand your foe and you might be surprised.
I can think of another reason for peope remaining ill-informed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider that the liberal/converative divide has existed in the American mind for longer than AGW/CC has. And typically environmental protections and issues have been placed on the liberal's plate, business and capitalism on the convervative's plate.
So it is not surprising that many in the convervative world would see AGW/CC as just another liberal agenda, and therefore not worthy of being studied, or just worthy of making sure the misinfomration and PR machine derails it before it is accepted by the public.
Unfortunately, the converse is also true. There are some in the liberal camp who have jumped on this bandwagon for less than noble reasons.
Expecting scientists themselves to become expert at PR is unreasonable. The moneyed opposition hires people who have spent their entire lives at becoming experts at manipulating public opinion. There is no way that people who have spent their lives becoming experts at science can compete with that. Science organizations need to hire PR experts just like any other organization does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest problem in this case is telling people something they do not want to hear, especially with so many people already having financial problems. It is much easier to convince people of something they want to believe, just ask any politician or marketer. When science comes up with something obviously beneficial, like antibiotics or electric refrigerators, it is an easy sell. But telling people that driving their kids to soccer practice in their beautiful new SUV is harming the environment is a whole different problem.
The problem does not lie with a lack of information. It's not about convincing the public with all the facts. We've got plenty of that clogging up the discussion. It lies with basic science literacy, not science facts. Being science literate, among other things, means we understand that science is indeed a concensus-based pursuit of knowledge (Here, I disagree with curmudgeon). If the pursuit of scientific understanding were based waiting until we have undisputable proof and undeniable fact then we would, in fact, be paralyzed. Science never seeks to "prove" anything and rarely speaks about "facts". The strength of science comes specifically because it is about consensus building--there will always be a significant part of the scientific process that moves from having numbers and analysis to interpretation--by people. The scientist must then present their interpretation of the analysis to their peers. That interpretation is accepted or rejected by consensus--there simply is no plain as day declaration of the Truth. It is, therefore, not those who stand on the side of the consensus that have failed to successfully argue their point, it is indeed those who have failed to convince the vast majority who have not managed to make a strong enough case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe other significant problem is that the scientific way of knowing and describing the world is not consistent with the media's primary approach to communicating about it. The media, by policy or common practice, will always seek an opposing position. The fact that science is consensus based means, by definition, that there will almost always be some very smart people who disagree with the consensus. Their opinion will be represented with equal weight as the scientific consensus, leading to a perception that "the jury is still out" and an inaccurate portrayal of the actual scientific understanding of any given issue. This has been increasing as the number of journalists specifically assigned as science writers has been decreasing and non-science literate journalists are assigned to science stories. In science, the jury is never finished deliberating but a consensus, nonetheless can be reached.
The challenge often lies in boiling down scientific information to the readability/cultural levels of the average reader. I remember attending a fascinating lecture on climate change by James Hansen. The data was powerful, the visuals were not. The mission of our project is exactly to bridge that gap...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLuca Semprini
www.poweringanation.org
It is yet again a tragedy for SciAm that it publishes this kind of anti-Science brow beating article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmericans are sceptical of the Science because the Science is weak and discredited. It's as simple as that.
Consensus is anti Science and trying to brow beat people into going along the establishment and it's vested interests is not going to work.
Thousands of reputable scientists oppose AGW. The Science is full of holes and while it may be ok for the internal scientific process, it is not good enough to make monumental global decisions that affect billions of people and cost billions of dollars.
People know, but the problem is expensive and they are cheap and lazy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe the majority of Americans surf life superficially and are lost in their own virtual world. Also America is a Christian Nation still steeped in Creationism and blind faith. "Don't worry, Be happy the Lord will take care His children." Christians fundamentally fear Science and are inclined to choose myth over reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScanate
I believe that one of the problems which Scientists face in purporting human induced climate change lies in the first sentence of the article. The first sentence seems to imply that melting glaciers and rising waters are a first in the history of the earth and due to human induced climatic warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know:
1. The climate has been changing throughout earths history.
2. Approximately 20,000 years ago much of the Northern Hemishpere was under hundreds of feet of ice.
3. The aboriginal peoples of North America crossed from Siberia on land bridge to North America
4. The level of Co2 in the atmosphere has been higher than it is now.
5. There were once forests in the high arctic
When dramatic climatic change, both warming and cooling, has taken place long before the introduction of the internal combustion engine, why would one believe that the current climatic change is due to human induced climatic warming?
Once the concept of climate change becomes a source of profit rather than a threat to profit to very large corporations, it will become a fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure if you are talking about perception, or if you are questining the science (which is really ok to do if you are working towards an understanding).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW - I am not a scientist, and don't pretent to even scratch the surface in comprehending all the details myself!
But back to your topic points.
Yes, I think most people, and especially the climate scientists, are well aware that climate has varied dramatically over large time scales. I think one of the major differeces is the rate of change. When past climate change has occurred "gently", it has allowed life to adjust. When it has done do precipitously, we have seen mass extinctions as life is simply not THAT agile. Today's changes are in line with the "precipitous" changes of the past, and this time, we do have some pretty damning evidence and science to directly link much of this change to human activity.
I've heard climate catastrophe predictions since the sixties when I was in high school. It was nonsense then. It's nonsense now. Nothing changes as reliably as the weather, CO2 is plant food and Chicken Little is not a good role model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlaciers have been melting since the last ice age. Many are in fact at present expanding.
So which Islands are being evacuated exactly? There has been much talk about this but it has not occurred. Publicity stunts have been performed to extract money from the perpetually guilt ridden hand wringers.
A well funded anti AGW campaign. Give me a break. The funding of the pro AGW movement amounts to tens of billions & massively outweighs any anti campaign.
Actual science? Cut out the corruption of data & snake oil salesmen; allow critical examination of the data & the public will have the information. The public is quite correctly sceptical of an industry that protects carpetbaggers & cheats.
The ozone hole? Not CFCs after all? Duped again by alarmism? Quite possibly.
("One way of doing that is to be like a politician and answer what you want to answer and not answer fully what they have asked," he advised.)
Exactly what they have been doing. Any wonder there is scepticism.
I attended these same sessions and covered this a few days ago here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/02/18/who-should-be-the-climate-persuaders/
And here:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/02/19/on-climate-communication/
where there is a spirited discussion underway in the thread.
It's instructive that the ozone layer is mentioned here. Remember a few years ago when ozone depletion was going to be our doom? Remember the magazine articles that made fun of people that didn't believe it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should have changed the script at least a tiny bit for the latest round of nonsense.
I am stunned by how many the commentors appear to be unaware of current global warming research. Of course there are many unsettled issues, but the great weight of scientific evidence indicates that our climate is going to get very bad unless we make major efforts to head off the worst of it, that what we don't fix now we will have to live with for thousands of years, and that feedbacks are even now being set into motion that may soon make the process impossible to stop. When 97% of the climate scientists most frequently published in peer reviewed journals and most often cited by other climate scientists believe global warming is man-made (according to studies reported in 2009 and 2010), why doesn't the American public pay attention to the evidence? The answer seems to be that there are powers that find it to their advantage to mislead the public and have the money to control the message.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor an easy introduction to evidence, causes, effects, uncertainties, and solutions pertaining to global warming, see http://climate.nasa.gov/
A review of last year's important research, with links to the sources, can be found at: http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-climate-science-climategate/. The evidence is scary!
The evidence against 148 different claims that global warming is produced by something other than man-produced carbon in the atmosphere can be found at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php These last two have links to other information and good questions
and discussions by readers and this one has basic, intermediate, and advanced explanations of the scientific evidence.
54 videos produced by Climate Crock of the Week that explain the science evidence for global warming can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33
Spend a little time and effort to learn about the current evidence. This is the only planet we have. It needs anddeserves your attention.
I have found the following argument to be irrefutable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA 5300 year old human body, known as Oetzi or the Iceman, was found thawing in the Alps in 1991. This proves that today's temperatures are extraordinary. Nobody has been able to identify a natural cause that accounts for this evidence. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases do so very well.
Really? So how come this hunter was up in the ice. Did his body move up the slope into the ice zone or was he hunting above the ice at the time. What caused the ice to be higher up the slope at that time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that previous changes in the climate were not caused by humans is not proof that humans are not capable of changing the climate. That argument is a logical fallacy. It is like saying that cooking your dinner on a stove is proof that a microwave is incapable of cooking food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evidence is rules out natural causes for the current rapid increase in the global average temperature, and points very strongly to excess CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels as the cause.
For just a few examples, the warming is more pronounced at night rather than during the day. This is the opposite of what would be expected if sun were responsible, or if clouds were responsible, but is completely consistent with CO2 being the cause of the warming. Also, satellites in space measure a decrease in the infrared heat radiation coming from the Earth at exactly the wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2. This indicates that CO2 is absorbing infrared heat radiation and causing an energy imbalance that results in a warmer atmosphere.
My speculation: Oetzi probably wasn't on the snow. His leather shoes unsuitable. He was apparently involved in a deadly struggle and either fell or took refuge in the gully where he was found, was snowed in and froze. The glacier that built up slid over the gully for 5 millenia until it melted in 1991 and hikers found him. Feel free to study the readily available discussions about his struggles. My point is that his body remained frozen through the alleged intervening warm periods such as the Medieval W.P.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisildenizen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot really, the concept that altering the chemistry of the planet will change the climate has existed for longer than the conservative/liberal divide.
Here is a good review of the history by someone with a PhD in the history of science.
The American Denial of Global Warming
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
TTLG,
Also an excellent point.
Jagadeesh,
What's the saying? You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think?
What is a repeatable experiment but the creation of consensus? Think about it. Of course there is the process of paradigm shift, but that is not even most of the picture in science. There is no paradigm shift without data, accepted through repeatability, i.e., consensus. Second, just how do you go about "experimenting" with global climate change, aside from the experiment in which we are now unwillingly participating in? And given that we do not have, say, an ecosystem on the moon in which to dabble (nor the time to do it), what alternatives are there except models? Really, this idealized picture you have of science is a simply naive. Scientists do the best they can with limited physical and cognitive resources. Go look at Kitcher's book, The Advancement of Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, referring to Oetzi might be a little off target. Glaciers flow downhill and melt. Most glaciers are retreating uphill as the melting is occurring faster than it used to, but I don't know that we know exactly where he was when he became part of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see a lot of this issue mirrored in the Canadian experience. As a teacher I also see this as an educational issue. Environmental curricula are in place but continue to receive low priority, partly due to lack of push from politicians and partly due to administrators lack of insight into climate change issues.They are currently stuck on literacy paradigms and national test scores.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of the cause, be it media, education, economics or denialism,I think educators (those who have insight) have the opportunity to take the initiative to establish a culture within their schools of conservation and environmental values. Individual teachers have the flexibility of initiative to promote environmentalism within their schools and better prepare their students for a changing future be it climate change or something else. Make no mistake, climate change is here to stay but I think it will be trumped by oil depletion.
The fact is that this whole discussion may be moot due to declining fossil fuels. As fuel prices increase, emissions will decrease and create natural social reductions in carbon loading which cause climate change...or not. Fossil fuel use will decline whether we like it or not...as we run out of the stuff.
Big changes are in line. Whether they are climate change or global warming or declining oil reserves, they are unavoidable and ironically they will help reduce climate change pressures and pave the way for a more sustainable global lifestyle. In the end, we will have a cleaner, more sustainable society. It may however be a painful lesson we learn.
My bad; Oetzi died in a depression and thus was preserved while the glacier flowed over him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOil from wells will decline in the coming decades if it hasn't started already, but there is a lot of coal left and a lot of tar sand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...why the media continues to cover anthropogenic climate change as a controversy or debate..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt might have something to do with the fact that controversy sells more copy.
I appreciate the comment. It's that kind of levelheadedness that will ultimately win the day, and help the rest of us discern between what is and is not referencing climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that there is no way for people to explore the data themselves and see what is happening. You could get a thousand scientists to say, "Yes, Climate Change is real," but nobody will heed what they say. What happens after parents warn their children that the stove is hot? We all hold an innate sense of curiosity, to explore, to understand, to see and experience for ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote an app that allows people to look at how the Canadian climate has changed over the last 100 years.
http://www.whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/
I plan to add U.S. data.
The problem is that there is no way for people to explore the data themselves and see what is happening. You could get a thousand scientists to say, "Yes, Climate Change is real," but nobody will heed what they say. What happens after parents warn their children that the stove is hot? We all hold an innate sense of curiosity, to explore, to understand, to see and experience for ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote an app that allows people to look at how the Canadian climate has changed over the last 100 years.
http://www.whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/
I plan to add U.S. data.
If it weren't for the retreating polar ice, melting permafrost, species migration upslope, flowers and trees blooming earlier, hurricanes, floods, droughts, forest fires, insect infestations, new diseases, and temperature measurements, I might not believe in human-caused global warming either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an American though, I would like to share the following opinion:
Not only must ignorance be penetrated but the locust mentality of Americans who firmly believe that they have a right to consume every resource for their own pleasure and leave nothing for future generations.
Science values frugality in the expression of theory but has difficulty teaching the same value in other aspects of life. To cultures that value frugality, science seems natural.
It is the uniquely American and unnatural desire to have everything that you are up against. It's greed that makes acceptance of dire consequences unpalatable.
"Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd say it started about the time S.A. turned into a leftist tool and ceased reporting solid scientific advances, and instead began publishing leftist propaganda garbage that starts with bogus statements like "As glaciers melt and island populations retreat from their coastlines to escape rising seas" without referencing the sources of these supposedly scientific facts. It was about the time that S.A. decided their (former) readership were stupid morons who lack the ability to discriminate between actual science and fraudlent propaganda.
Chris,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must have communicated my ideas unclearly.
I agree the science behind AGW/CC has been around for ages. However the public at large has not been cognizent or actively involved with the concepts of Global Warming/ Climate Chage until the last couple decades, and even then, nothing like they are today.
That is to say, a typical conservative 20-30 years ago would have known liberals like environmental protections, but probably would not even be aware of the concept of AGW.
A conservative today most certainly does link the idead of AGW with a liberal agenda.
As a physician and someone who frequently read SciAm during college pre-med and med school many years ago, I experienced sadness and disappointment after reading this article and realizing that this is no longer a credible source. To be also accused of ignorance and intransigence was offensive. No, we are not uninformed. Anyone with an internet connection can and do find the truth about all sorts of things. For example, I was able to find out that this author, a "science journalist", has neither a science nor journalism degree... She has a PhD in sociology as editor of SciAm with quite a limited list of publications. If she had taken even a basic college science course, she would be familiar with the scientific method, know that science has little to do with consensus, and that what was done with the "hockey stick" graph was a big no-no. If she had any science background, she would appreciate how inappropriate it is to use words like "deniers". If she had a more extensive journalism background, she would know that "denialism" isn't a real word (though recently coined for the specific use in AGW propaganda). Having said that, one doesn't need to have basic science literacy to find evidence for the lie that is "scientific consensus", for data manipulation, for collusion to suppress critical review, for conspiracy to hide/destroy data in defiance of law... to produce a desired outcome. Indeed, anyone can see the plain evidence of scientific malpractice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, economics is a social science whose empiricism is questionable at best. Second, science thrives on skepticism, but often fails in its ability to communicate to the masses, particularly in an America that is largely illiterate when it comes to other cultures and science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike other highly debated issues in the past, specifically the relation between cigarette smoking and cancer, the effect of acidified rain upon forests and freshwater, the effect of CFCs on stratospheric ozone, and others brought under doubt by the reactionary wing of our government supported by corporate America ...... the empirical evidence that is growing with every peer reviewed article ..... points to the warming of our atmosphere as directly linked to human activities .... specifically the unchecked burning of fossil fuels.
So, do you deny that cigarette smoking causes cancer? Follow the state of the art science, not the opinions of Fox and Clear Channel political pundits. Your children will thank you for it.
As a physician with an extensive science background, it was painful to read that you are a teacher. "Denialism" isn't a real word, for example, though recently coined for the specific use in AGW propaganda. Instead of establishing a "culture of conservation and environmental values", why don't we start with a culture of discipline, hard work, and serious academic values?... and apply this to basic math, reading comprehension, biology, chemistry, physics...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Climate Denial Spin Machine has been generating it pseudo-science propoganda for decades. Here's the result:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“There’s a huge appetite among the rank-and-file to raise fundamental questions about the underlying science,” said Michael McKenna, a Republican strategist and energy lobbyist.
Source: "A Climate Skeptic With a Bully Pulpit in Virginia Finds an Ear in Congress", NY Times, Feb 22. 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html?ref=science
Why Americans deny climate science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of the predictions for the increase of the Earth’s climate are produced by computer models rather than historical data. In order for designers to satisfy their predictions for the future, they route to what are called “flux adjustments.” Flux adjustments can skew the results by being up to twenty-five times larger than the effect of doubling the carbon dioxide concentrations American Policy Roundtable exclaimed. The flux adjustments are then shown to gullible people.
Humans need to begin to realize that spending millions of dollars every year isn’t going to solve anything, especially because the course of the Earth is beyond our control. The Earth’s cycle will go on with or without our hybrid cars or solar panels.
Whether Global Warming is a hoax or not, it is no excuse for not treating the Earth with respect. All things considered, there is nothing wrong with recycling, carpooling, etc., to treat our Earth with respect, but if there are some things outside of our control, why waste our time?
Yes. Bio fuel, wind, solar, tidal power have cost billions & NEVER live up to the projections when it comes to delivery as well as taking taxes & funding that could be used so much more effectively to solve problems with the environment & help to adapt to the conditions on the earth. We can NOT change the climate any more than King Chanute could turn back the tide. We can & do adapt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does the scientific consensus explain this? 150 million yrs ago, atmospheric CO2 was at 2,000 ppm 5 times higher than today's level and global temp. was 15C the same as today. 450 million yrs ago, CO2 was at 4,000 ppm 10 times higher than today and temp. was 12C, colder than today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChris G 18
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[M]ost of what I've seen is that the scientists want to say one thing, and the politicians say that is too scary and change it.
A report in the January 11, 2011 issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A agrees. It concludes that there is very little chance of keeping the global mean surface temperature at or below 2°C, a level now believed to mark the threshold between "dangerous" and "extremely dangerous" climate change. But this is not a conclusion that the British (or any other) government wants to hear.
"There is little political appetite and limited academic support for such a revision. . . . Put bluntly, while the rhetoric of policy is to reduce emissions in line with avoiding dangerous climate change, most policy advice is to accept a high probability of extremely dangerous climate change rather than propose radical and immediate emission reductions."
Dr. Strangelove 66
Charting CO2 and temperature hundreds of millions of years ago still has a high level of uncertainty, although there do seem to be periods with high levels of CO2 and low temperatures. There is a video that offers a very credible explanation for this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XjhTrCgVb5U
Hogwash!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is enough science on TV already, daily, explaining climate change/global warming. But who watches it? Not your average American Joe and Jane! There is too much Idol, CSI, Friends etc. reruns on TV.
Science is boring, unless its Stormchasers, and that does little to explain the real environmental problem.
Now that we're getting serious with the CO2 problem, out come reports and speeches about the tragedy of ozone and black carbon that are more critical to control!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike we haven't been working, not only in the U.S. but around the world, to reduce ozone and SOOT since 1970, with great improvements (yet much further to go) since.
TV, radio and print ads suddenly proliferate, with sweet talking women telling us that Natural gas is the solution. We must use more now - it's so much cleaner than other fuels!- to save the planet. Yet natural gas use still hauls more of those "sequestered" carbon molecules from deep under the earth's surface and adds them to the saturated levels in the atmosphere.
When profits rule the conversation, reality loses.
So what sources of energy do you use? Burning cow dung for our cooking fires are we? Pedal generator for our computer? Profit is the ogre is it. Well you would be happy in Cuba wouldn't you, together with the accompanying standard of living. The profit motive is what gives us competition & the most cost effective means of delivery of services & goods. You can go back to the stone age if you wish. I would like to see a reduction in the use of fossil fuels too but it is people with your socialist views that are preventing the use of nuclear power. The only viable alternative. If there is one group responsible more than any other, for the dominance of fossil fuel use for power generation, it is you & your socialist ilk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPitiful response!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was already deep into science when I entered 8th grade in 1958 and the first "Sputnik" Science class. I took the big book (it was a very basic overview of Science) and read through the whole book, and found most of the book just a review of what I already knew.
Every time people of "your ilk" are offended by someone like me objecting to your greedy ignorance of reality, your vomit up the "socialist" tag!
Hey, go ahead, it makes you look so foolish.
I myself, though I dropped out of college as a Physics major, spent my life laboring in the vast technology bowel of American enterprise, as a computer and telecom specialist who always seemed to have the answers even before some seekers knew that they needed them.
I retired at 58, having seen the business that I enjoyed so much fouled by that profit motive driving CEO's to make decisions against their best interests. Having lived moderately, loved lavishly and saved well, I was able to take a buyout in 2003 and have lived well since, and still have a seven figure asset base to allow me to spend my days enjoying my continuing search for knowledge, whether with family, friends, books, newspapers, magazines (even though Scientific American is nowhere near the "Science Bible" it was back in the 60's when I started pondering its dense articles and enjoyed Asimov's puzzles), and slashing through the internet with my x-fighter fingers.
I worked for eight different companies, from one with 50 employees to three multibillion dollar companies- one was an English firm- and used to apply for jobs with many large and small businesses just to see what they were doing and how they worked. I turned down more job offers than I can remember.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeekers of truth do not slander each other with tawdry trash talk.
Everything I earned was the result of my talents with the assistance of my family, friends, sources of education, and business opportunities.
No man is an island, entirely to himself.
And since it's now 2:02AM and I have to get up at 6:45AM to drive my wife to the airport so that she can visit her 91 year old father, and probably have to drive home with him and his van+31foot trailer from Biloxi,MS to home in Wisconsin, I'll just add:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<<<M.I.T.'s Emanuel offered a familiar explanation for why some scientists are allergic to public forums: "There's an attitude in our culture that if we're doing outreach...we may be engaging in a kind of advocacy that is poisonous to science.">>>
It's like that saying that many who would like to say something intelligent spit up "You can baffle them with B.S. ..." Our lives depend on science and technology, but magic seems to be easier for the average Joe/Jane to accept than the complexities and wonder of science.
Alarmist Retard Boy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at the graphs of CO2 and global temp. over the last 600 million yrs before you speak nonsense. The end of Jurassic was interglacial period. CO2 was at 2,000 ppm and temp. 15C. Btw, life flourished during the Cambrian when CO2 was 7,000 ppm. Now CO2 is 390 ppm and alarmists say we will have mass extinction. Maybe you're right.
There were only two continents then, Laurasia and Gondwana. There were no ice caps and sea level was 200 feet higher than today. So the world was a very different place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post is incorrect, in that global temperatures were 3 degrees higher than today. I think the idea that all of the Earth's ice can melt with only a 3C temperature increase is cause for alarm, not reassurance.
Perhaps thousands of years after we are done pumping up the atmospheric CO2 and all the global ice melts, the Earth will once again reach a new equilibrium point. But I don't think our human civilization will much like a 60 meter increase in sea level.
The thesis of the article is that Americans are misformed or continue to resist the concept of human induced climatic change inspite of overwhelming evidence that climatic change is human-induced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my original blog I stated:
1. The climate has been changing throughout earths history.
2. Approximately 20,000 years ago much of the Northern Hemishpere was under hundreds of feet of ice.
3. The aboriginal peoples of North America crossed from Siberia on land bridge to North America
4. The level of Co2 in the atmosphere has been higher than it is now.
5. There were once forests in the high arctic
There is no logical fallacy here because I am not trying to disprove the theory of human-induced climatic change, but rather indicate that there have been dramatic changes in earth's climate prior to human influence and therefore that there must be climatic cycles that we do not understand.
The fact is that glaciers have been retreating for at least 20,000 years. 20,000 years is the blink of an eye in terms of earth's history.
The fact is the sea levels have been rising for at least the last 10,000 years.
The level of c02 in the atmosphere is also cyclical and has been higher than it is now.
If you want me to believe in human-induced climatic change than explain non-human induced climatic change and then explain why this climatic change is different and human-induced.
This is obviously an extraordinarily important social and econmic issue as we are currently devoting billions of dollars in trying to stop what may be unstoppable instead spending them on coping with the consequences of climatic change.
No, you all have it wrong; to paraphrase Mr. A. Lincoln, it is the 'immense, palpable pecuniary interest' on the question of climate change that unites the carbon industry as one; yet, it can't be demonstrated that scientists will gain a dollar by restricting it [carbon]. Of course he was referring to extending slavery into the Territories by the Southern people, who were united in this as 'one Man.' Deal with the 'immense, palpable pecuniary interest.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYears ago I had a much loved professor who was obviously an atheist but always described himself as an "agnostic". One day I asked him why and he explained that he felt "uncomfortable with those people" - the atheists - "because they make a religion out of it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel the same way about the AGW crowd. The scientific evidence for anthropogenic primacy in climate change is certainly debatable by reasonable, informed people, and when I see terms like "climate deniers" used, it frankly turns me off. This is politics, not science. The historical certainty of the Holocaust of living memory is NOT equivalent to the evidence for man-made climate forcing, and using slurs which suggest it is should be deeply offensive to all educated people.
Continual, regional and global climate change is a certainty, throughout the ages. AGW may - or may not - be true as well. But let's not oversell our evidence and our models, trivializing everyone who still holds opposing views. Let's keep the debate scientific, in the best sense of the term, and hold our arguments to our evidence.
"I just get the feeling that those that believe in climate change don't have much going on upstairs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what you had to say in response to this?
"...in fact it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association and the National Research Council, along with the national academies of more than two dozen countries."
These are not opinions or beliefs. Scientists do that at home when they are not on the clock. We don't get paid for our opinion.
Wecan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are still engaging in a logical error. Asking for a explanation of what cause all climate changes in the past before you will believe that more CO2 causes the earth to retain more energy is a bit like saying you won't believe that Booth killed Lincoln until we know who killed Oetzi.
BTW, your statement about sea levels is a bit misleading. Here is a picture:
(from http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sea+level)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/cryosphere/7b.html
Im so curious to read the information you have viewed. Could you please share it? I gotta admit, as a climate scientist, I would love to read some good news once in a while!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChris,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFantastic. If the debate were only live.
Norm,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you got me convinced. A whole big world and one mountaintop glacier and the Iceman Cometh. Wow. Thats science for ya! See post 41 for some other examples that might help you get a grasp.
If you think your science is hard to communicate come on over to soil microbiology and agro-ecosystem science! Dont have a clue what those sciences are? Then we have an excellent point in case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone in my lab asks why in the world do I get involved with the commentary. I told them to read the article and said: YOU are the solution. I'm trying here folks.
And so at the end of reading 93 comments, the article and so on, Im left with one question every time: What if we are wrong, either way? Understanding climate change is tantamount to understanding the world we live in. And that my friends and other friends is what makes me passionate. I wish everyone felt the same way.
We have everything and nothing to lose. Uyy.
Unfortunately, most of your green technology is like that! It is not only alternative fuels, it is green tech in general! I purchased an Acadia Ultra efficient heat pump about 3 years ago, I was supposed to be able to heat my home for about 800 dollars a year! Guess what I have spent on electric in the past 2 months? 1150 dollars, JUST FOR 2 MONTHS!!!! A far cry from the 800 dollars a year! Of course that was back when I thought we are all going to fry from CO2 in a few years!!! I figured out that I cannot control the climate, and neither can governments! So now I am stuck with a 17,000 dollar high efficiency heat pump, that ultimately can not afford to use! I now with have subsidize my heat pump with some not so environmentally
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfriendly coal and wood!!! So I can honestly say by making fossil fuels to expensive will ultimately harm the environment!
In reply to WECAN 89
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you want me to believe in human-induced climatic change than explain non-human induced climatic change and then explain why this climatic change is different and human-induced."
Here are two clear explanations the the differences:
http://sks.to/cycle
http://sks.to/agw
American's increasing resist the lie that their is a consensus in the scientific community regarding climate change. There is no such consensus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American continues to publish articles that push some people's opinions, but that does not make it fact. What is it that someone believes that there is really a consensus regarding??
I don't find the public's skepticism that surprising. Given the number of Americans who believe in creationism, UFOs, ghosts, etc. it’s hardly surprising. People tend believe (1) what they were told as children and makes them comfortable, and (2) what fits with their daily experience. After those criteria are met, the might believe (3) things that are told to them by others that are outside of (1) and (2). The abstraction of science is only believed (and I say believed, not understood) when it produces a tangible result -- such a computer, or a cure for a disease-- or when the information does not challenge those “daily” comforting beliefs. I say this after several years of teaching both inductive and deductive reasoning methods in logic classes to college students (so it’s a “2” belief for me; I haven’t done real research on this).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTell the typical American that the average distance of the moon is really 485,000 km and not 385,000 km, and he’ll say “hmm interesting.”
Tell him that humans weren’t created on a sunny Sunday morning a few thousand years ago by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god who really, really likes him personally, and he’ll fight you tooth and nail. As long as science serves people without disturbing them, they will accept it.
Approximately a third of American adults are obese, and we know that obesity radically increases your odds for stroke, heart attack and diabetes. But we’re still not putting down the cheetos and twinkies, because first, it’s hard to change, and second, all that bad stuff happens to other people. It’s an extension of the freshman philosophy major’s proof of his own immortality:
(1) Other people die
(2) I am not other people, therefore
(3) I will not die.
That’s why many commercials for cardiac meds begin with a 50 something guy saying “my heart attack was a wake-up call.’ Those are the people who give up the twinkies.
Humans rarely seem to act on a crisis until it’s upon them, and then the survivors comfort themselves by saying “who could have seen this coming?” I am reasonably convinced that by 2020, the polar icecap will disappear in summers. But even this will not be enough. It will take a seismic event, a catastrophe that is undeniable, to change the public’s collective mind. Perhaps the collapse of an Antarctic ice sheet would do it. By then, it will probably be too late.
One can only despair, and try to prepare for a diminished future.
You can't generalize from your one sample to every case. I bought a ground source heat pump for about that same amount a couple of years ago to replace a failing AC and aging furnace (high efficiency propane), and my savings in heating and cooling are running about $1,000 per year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a college biology professor for over 40 years, I have drawn a number of conclusions that might contribute an answer to the question, "Why are Americans ill-informed about climate change." Science illiteracy among the majority Americans dates back to at least 1859 when Darwin first published his "Origin of Species" Over 60% of Americans do not accept Neo-Darwinism in spite of the fact every legitimate biologsist and biological society does, and they believe humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries. At the heart of this illiteracy, in my view, is the fact that Americans are anti-intellectual. Intellectuals are not to be trusted. Popular American culture idolizes elite athletes,(Michael Jordan), elite entertainers(Michael Jackson), elite celebrities (Paris Hilton), among other questionable contributors to the well-being of humankind. Elite intellectuals are "geeks," "nerds," egg-heads" to name a few derogatory stereotypes. As children, intellectuals are often bullied, both physically and emotionally. I think it would be useful to publically acknowledge much more fully the valuable contributions intellectuals make to humankind. When the Nobel Prize ceremony is as well publicized and televised as the Academy Awards, we'd be on our way to overcoming our anti-intellectual values. Perhaps then global warming ( I prefer “global arming” over the “PC” “climate change” because it is a more explicit descriptor) will be recognized as the looming problem it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet, American capitalist kleptocracy has a vested economic interest in ensuring that Americans continue to be ignorant about the realities of global warming and so does our government.
A big part of the problem is that so many insults are being tossed around - and terms used like "denier" - that is usually associated with the word "holocaust" and the people who use it know it. There is also a tendency to imply knowledge that does not exist - ie we know how to titrate the CO2 so that average temperature increase will be limited to exactly 2 degrees centigrade. Also we have been "had" before - remember Y2K - and how about the pandemic that wasn't - H1N1. Yet there was great consensus about them both. How did "climategate" happen and why weren't the perpetrators drummed out of the scientific community - instead the response was "boys will be boys". Unfortunately throughout history prophets of doom have existed and florished with proposed solutions to crises of the time that were horrendous including human sacrifice (but never of themselves). So now we are told we must abandon our fossil fuel economy - but usually by people who have just travelled thousands of miles in jet planes and have no intention of changing that behaviour - so a little humility and civility with gradations of certainty would go a long way to improve communication with those of us who are still sceptical - but refuse to believe we are just ignorant luddites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHugh
The answer to why you have lost the public is clear. from the early 90's on the claims from the protagonists were shrill, bombastic and over reaching. Gores claim that "we need no more research" shot the entire issue in the foot. Further the ostracism of anybody that held anything but the rubber stamped mantra further created doubt. Americans at their core are a distrustful lot. Consequently it is imperative that explanations that over reach the data or spin unsubstantiated gloom and doom will polarize a reaction which is exactly what happened. Now you are stunned to find there is a massive problem with the credibility of your arguments: YOU MADE IT! The bonfire of vanities that was set in motion by this issue had perhaps permanently hamstrung the ability to garner support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy suggestion is for the time being to marry the concerns regarding climate change with other issues that run parallel. Instead of championing climate change as the sole reason to overhaul energy generation pair it to geopolitical issues. There are particularly hot given the unrest in North Africa. Should that spill over to Saudi there will be many converts to alternative energy sources without mentioning climate. Second, bring the media hype down a notch and keep arguments pertinent to what is at hand. In a winter like this Global warming arguments are going nowhere. Instead focus on regional solution to regional problems and do not celebrate "green" crap just because of the label. Volt owners are finding out that their 40K gets them little value at 10 degrees. Not to mention that for most, given electric generation in most of the country is by coal, electric cars are the absolute worse thing you can buy. We should use the stability of diversity argument to move different areas of the country to forms of energy generation and use that makes the most sense for them. If we can do this we get the benefits of moderating fossil fuel usage without climate change being the big story. It is not important that everybody believe the same thing, it is only important that we can get people to make the needed changes.
As a former advisor to the US Secretary of Energy I am amazed at the debate on the issue of science and the public. First, it has to be recognized that the overwhealming bulk of funding for science is traceable to Congressional appropriations. Politicians at the Federal level use endless preogatives of the legislative process to inject their pet ideologies into the stream of public funding. Second, perhaps some in the public have grown aware of the fact that science is employed as a political weapon in many istances so that preconceived political objectives can be clothed in the mantle of science. Third, it has to be admitted that varieties of scientific heterodoxy virtualy never receive public funds, no matter how meteritorius such endeavors might be if rated by scientists "neutral to the cause." Obviously, scientific boards and their members are more prone to have favorite projects and researchers and the results can be: political and biased.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee the problem is I do not know how much I am saving because this is a new home. I was going by the energy usage calculator on their website, of course they took it off now but at the time you plugged in your square footage, insulation type and how many windows and doors. But I can honestly say I feel ripped off! This unit was supposed to be almost as efficient as geothermal, and until we get below 20 degrees outside It is pretty close!(I have a friend that has almost the same size and design of house that has geothermal) But as cold as the winters has been the last 3 years I just can't afford 1150 dollars to heat with for 2 months! Who knows, if I had a standard heating system it might be saving me money, but I feel it was not worth, nor will it ever pay for itself by the time it will need replaced. Plus a sensor was in the wrong position and I had to call a local repair person to look at it, they charged my 212 dollars which I feel the company should pay for! Well enough of my griping!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy post is correct. I cited facts. Your interpretation is incorrect. Since there were no polar ice caps, earth's albedo was low. That should worsen global warming with CO2 at 2,000 ppm. Earth should have been hot as hell. But it was a cool 15C same as today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSea level already rose 280 ft. in the last 18,000 yrs, that's a blink of an eye in geologic time. That's not due to humans. The world had and will change with or without humans. Whether or not humans can adapt to it is another story.
Today's temp. is one of the coldest in 600 million yrs. For most of the time, global temp. was 20C to 22C. We are still in an Ice Age despite the global warming scare.
Maybe the problem with Americans and climate change, we think for ourselves! If we have questions we do not follow science blindly like the rest of the world. We do our own research, make our own decisions! As with your post, yes they are correct! But you do not get the media attention, so YOUR WRONG!!!! I myself have discovered published articles by the same alarmist scientist that dispute AGW. But you will never hear mention of these articles by the press or science journals. They are published but do you think the news will ever report it? Do you think even if they are reported the true believers have some excuse of not accepting it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance this article:
Small Fluctuations In Solar Activity, Large Influence On Climate
ScienceDaily ^ | Aug. 28, 2009 | ScienceDaily
Subtle connections between the 11-year solar cycle, the stratosphere, and the tropical Pacific Ocean work in sync to generate periodic weather patterns that affect much of the globe, according to research appearing this week in the journal Science. The study can help scientists get an edge on eventually predicting the intensity of certain climate phenomena, such as the Indian monsoon and tropical Pacific rainfall, years in advance.
An international team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) used more than a century of weather observations and three powerful computer models to tackle one of the more difficult questions in meteorology: if the total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the approximately 11-year solar cycle, how can such a small variation drive major changes in weather patterns on Earth?
The answer, according to the new study, has to do with the Sun's impact on two seemingly unrelated regions. Chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean respond during solar maximum in a way that amplifies the Sun's influence on some aspects of air movement. This can intensify winds and rainfall, change sea surface temperatures and cloud cover over certain tropical and subtropical regions, and ultimately influence global weather
Kevin "Travesty" Trenberth, writing to Tom Wigley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! Kevin"
SciAm never heard of ClimateGate?
You're unaware there are principles of science (from Francis Bacon), requiring sharing data, testing ALL hypotheses (not just trying to prove your favorite), etc? Such things used to be taught in schools.
Thank you for your flattering assertion that I (and other "deniers") am ill-informed. My Ph.D. in Meteorology, with a specialty in radiative transfer and a grad minor in EE makes me well enough informed to say the assertions of Mann, Trenberth, Jones, Santer, Overpeck, Sommerville, Romm, and Hansen are a perversion of science. These people are greedy liars, motivated by self-gain and politics. Neither data nor radiative theory support their claims - nor those of SciAm.
Richard C. Savage
Univ-Wisconsin, Madison, 1976
Why is it that so many intellectuals have such disdain for those who pay their wages? Anti market economy, often preferring dictators to elected governments. Is it because you work with your brain in cloistered even incestuously inbred intellectual environments where birds of a feather exclude all others?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was intellectuals that denied the truths exposed by Darwin & numerous other great thinkers until long after their deaths. You are typical of the flock pigeons who follow the leader & shun those who explore other paths. There are other paths & the flock is about to lose its feathers. Perhaps Ickarus was an intellectual too. You sir are an intellectual snob who denies the honest good sense & alert BS detectors of the great proletariat that you so disdain.
Let's face it, there are quite a few people out there who get virtually all of their news and opinions from right wing news media, and those media outlets have been telling people that there is no such thing as global warming. Unfortunately for the rest of us, there is significant portion of the U.S. population that won't believe global warming is real until Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tell them so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you. Your post makes more sense & is more informative than all the articles published on the subject by SA in a very long time. I only hope your post is widely read. Unfortunately this string may just about have run its course. I intend trying to direct people from other strings to your post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of the above discussions leave out something very simple. There is a scientific, non-human source of global climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrary to popular opinion, the biggest driver of the climate on earth is the varying distance between the earth and the sun.
I expand.
Everything in the solar system revolves around its centre of gravity. That INCLUDES the sun itself. When several of the gas giants are on the same side of the sun in their orbits, to maintain the balance of the system, the sun has to move away from them. There are times when that centre of gravity (cog) will be considerably OUTSIDE the surface of the sun. Just like it is now. Some simple maths says that if the sun is further away from the cog, inner planets, like the earth, will have a widely varying amount of energy from the sun. If we, too, rotate around that cog, and the sun is off centre by, say, 1.5 million miles (as it is right now) there will be an annual plus and minus (during the year) of well over 3% in the radiation reaching the earth. i.e. a 6% difference between summer and winter. It is my (simple) understanding that that is more than enough to account for the present major climate swings. It is also enough to suggest that climate change is simply not proven.
Depending on the offset in relation to the orbit of the earth, the two hemispheres may get very different weather results.
There a numerous small reasons why Americans are so poorly informed about climate change. However, behind it all is a deliberate corporate sponsored "conspiracy" to subvert decisions using empirical evidence. This is fully documented in the book: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. The media has not done their job, but why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is my reason why I have not bought into "Global Warming". First, I admit I am a skeptic, a scientific novice and have not personaly studied the data. I accidently came across this article on another completely unrelated website. I just created an account a couple minutes ago to provide what I think is the base reason why myself and most of the public have doubts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason is that "change" has been happening, is happening now and will continue happen in the future. Our universe has been expanding (changing) since it began. Our planet hase been changing since it began. The continental plates, magnetic poles, flow of ocean currents and yes weather have been changing since our planet was formed and will continue to change. All without anything to do with Man. If Man were to disappear tomorrow, all of this change would continue to happen.
I think it is true that the planet has had multiple ice ages over the last 100,000+ plus years alone. All happening without anything to do with Man. So, the question for me about Global Warming is, what percentage is Man contributing to Global Warming? Is it equivalent to "1 grain of sand in all the beaches in all of the world"? Is it more than that? Since change has and will happen, then are all we talking about is a weather change arriving a little earlier than when it was going to happen regardless if Man is on the planet or not?
For me, I need those scientists who have committed their professional reputations to "not be wrong", to put their Global Warming data in context with the past, current and future weather changes that will inevitably happen with or without Man. Putting it in this context would go a long way to eliminate my doubts that "Global Warming" is solely or primarily due to Man and that as a direct result a near extinction event is imminent.
You certainly seem full of yourself and seem to enjoy calling others crude, childish names. When (if) you grow up, you will hopefully realize that once someone reads ONE of your vitriolic comments, most of us will just scan past anything else you post. This stream seems to have run its course, and is no longer worth following, so I just leave you with this comment to think about, or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmericans and many others are ill informed about the dangerous consequences of global warming because the lobby of industries that make a lot of money from high energy use are trying to blind them about this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough not a scientist, I've read enough over the past ten years to believe in AWG and that it will have very negative effects on huge numbers of people. I'm also an American, live in the hinterland and talk with lots of other Americans from all social groups about the events of the day, including AWG.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo insights:
1. Since WWII, cultured, intelligent, powerful, scientifically-informed strata of the American population have, together with the rich, consistently dumped (in word and action) on all those socially beneath them. It's been made clear to the bottom seventy percent of Americans that they have been consistently lied to, ignored, gouged, shouted down and laughed at by those luckier than they. So here comes AWG, backed by all these fancy scientists, and for once the real majority is encouraged to get on board. Are you people serious? Considering the historical background, you couldn't convince most Americans that 2 + 2 = 4. No one has been taking care of them for over forty years now, why should they help take care of others? Especially when the big proponents all seem to be such fancy dudes. You scientists and other interested parties need to huddle with some social psychologists and consult with them about how to win over probably the most hostile audience you'll ever have.
2. When fancy folk promote a crusade such as AWG, average people, based on real, long experience, immediately reach to make sure their wallet is still where it was and hasn't been emptied. Times are not good for average Americans now, and they really haven't been good for a very long time. To the extent that efforts against AWG negatively impact American living standards (not all that high any more) and require changes in life style that will cost even more than that, I believe that most Americans just aren't interested. Their attitude is pretty much to let the chips fall where they may.
Final word: I'm simply amazed at the culture-blindness here at SA and over in the UK too (I read the Telegraph and the Guardian every day). Don't you people realize that all those "others," whom many of you despise, the ones to whom you're trying to sell AWG, are real people just like you with all the needs and desires that you have? I don't see how you're going to be able to do what you need to do on AWG without some very serious mental recalibration.
Lots of great facts here. Bravo!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a look at the debate from the political perspective.
If AWG is correct then one could logically argue for a serious reduction in our world-wide fossil fuel consumption. This would of course have a serious effect on the bottom line of fossil fuel producers and suppliers. This is understandably scary for the Republican party as the oil industry is a MAJOR contributor to conservative campaigns. Conservatives see AWG as a direct assault on their power base. And guess what. Their right. It is.
Then Dems can read the writing on the wall as well as anyone else so, understandably, they pile on. But just because the Dems are whacking conservatives over the head with AWG doesn't make them wrong. The Dems have all four limbs and their teeth clamped on to the issue and their not going to let go because THEY ARE RIGHT. The science is on their side this time. Now, I wish that all the left wanted was to save the world (and they do, just like most sensible people) but they really like the fact that the required reductions in fossil fuel consumption(thus a reduction in campaign funding) is going to take the conservatives out at the knees. And, I must admit, so do I.
All this makes the right quite pissed. But, all they can do is pour money into public relation campaigns. Which is something they're particularly good at due to their alliance with the people who've been studying the effect of advertising on the American consumer for going on about 100 years now.
In short, all the AWG deniers are falling for is a commercial that is falsely telling you that their box of laundry soap will make your cloths cleaner than the other guys.
V. D. .......keep telling the truth.
I wish I owned Fox. I'd program the conservatives to be nice. And to, once a week(on Sundays of course)
hit themselves in the head with a hammer.
Cheers everyone.
Tod
Americans view the whole climate change issue as politically charged and are therefore suspicious of it. Climate change is politics in America, not science. Even the best scientist loses all credibility when he/she is perceived as politically biased, just as any judge on the bench would be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the whole point of Curmudgeon's comment on phlogiston is....that if you had personally adopted the prevailing scientific consensus in regards to phlogiston you would have been, well, wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert Schmidt said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this' Special interest lobbies have exploited america's limited mental capacity to advance their agenda, whether that is creationism or denying AGW. Without intellectual tools the american people will believe whatever they are already primed to believe. Their distrust of the government and fear for their jobs means they will gladly follow anyone who offers them a simplistic world view. '
And associating all 'creationists' with denial of Anthropogenic Global Warming is WHAT exactly, if not a 'simplistic world view ' ?
Oh that's right - all your associates in the scientific community believe the stereotype, so it must be accurate.
idenizen wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'For those who are deniers (by this, I mean someone who has been convinced of a position, and no additional evidence or information will sway their position) - they are saying they will ingore 9 out of 10 doctors' opinions in favor of the off change the 10th might be right.'
And how many times throughout history, have the nine been shown to be wrong? Too many times to leave science to 'consensus'.
The consensus position and rejected Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)....are merely the strategy of cowards... who know they have nothing to stand on, and for that reason wish desperately to stifle debate.
The arrogance is neither from the science community nor those who insult stupidity. Fraud is profitable in America not only because of ignorance but because those who know better handle it too delicately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieving nonsense is easier than understanding reality. I'm no climatologist but I understand science and mathematics well enough to respect the opinions of those who are. People who are less educated are at a disadvantage but that is no excuse. The Internet and the local library provide free resources to remedy that problem. Anyone who refuses to accept the truth and chooses to remain in ignorance or spew lies deserves no respect in any discussion. They are the ones who are arrogant. They insult everyone when they peddle nonsense as if it were truth.
The question is not whether humanity is warming the climate of Earth. We are. The question is what are we going to do about it? And when are we going to get started?
Suppose for a moment that the Sun has a surprise for us. In this hypothetical scenario, the Sun is to blame for warming the Earth not us. This is not true but let's play along. Suppose we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels to the extent that we restore the climate to its former friendlier version...for now. The risk is that we will be investing in conservation needlessly. Oh my. What a catastrophe. We stand to save hundreds of billions of dollars in fuel over the long haul. Citizens could end up with a few extra thousands of dollars in fuel savings each year. Will global warming deniers then be clenching their fists and saying, "No! Take that money away from me! I don't want it!"?
We could reduce air pollution and people would have fewer heart attacks and breath easier. We might bypass traffic congestion with commuter rail systems. Yikes.
Now suppose all that conservation was for naught but saving money. The Sun cools down and it really starts to get chilly. I wonder what we could do to warm up the planet again? Say, didn't we leave a load of oil, coal, and gas in the ground? I have an idea.
The risk of doing nothing about human-caused global warming is to risk being last in a long and growing list of species gone extinct. The risk of taking drastic action to conserve fossil fuels and change our ways is that we might put more money in our own pockets.
Comparison of relative risks lends new meaning to the phrase "arrogant fools" doesn't it?
Martin Wirth, I agree with your judgments on AGW and what we should do, as well as your ideas of what advantages could accrue from action now. I just know a whole lot of people who disagree. And I don't think it's sufficient to either put them down or patronize them. I cannot see a realistic AGW scenario that does not require their willing consent. And their elected representatives are fully aware of this. It's just not enough to tell them to go to the library. The AGW issue has to be made more personally pertinent to them and their families, and must, absolutely MUST, take into account their suspicions of people who are, let's say, smarter than they are. Condescendance and/or contempt is not going to win the day. Concessions are going to have to be made. No one (no one at all) familiar with the American grass roots attitudes of today can take the hard positions regarding AGW that so many here on this forum feel appropriate. I guess we'd all agree that some kind of congressional action will be necessary in this effort. And the congresspeople will do as they've always done: vote in such a manner as to permit them to get re-elected in two years. And if their constituents have a problem getting their minds around corrective efforts, they'll vote against such efforts. Do you actually believe that the politicians will "vote their conscience" (assuming they have one) and ignore their voters on this issue? Come now. Get serious. I simply do not understand how obviously intelligent people like yourself cannot come to grips with the political realities of this issue. You and people like you are living in fantasy land. If you think this matter can be put over by brute force, think again. And remember, I (personally) am on your side. We really need some much more creative thinking about how this problem can be presented than has been evident so far, not (obviously) in this forum but in the much larger, public forum in Washington.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry, but Robin Lloyd is "So Ill-Informed about Climate Change".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think many folks seriously doubt the existence or oncoming of Climate Change. The problem is blaming it on some human-induced factor. Climate change is a solar phenomena, and has b een happening in general cycles for at least a million years. 600 times!!
Human-induced activities, OK I'll say it: CO2 has had nothing whatever to do with climate change. The current climate changes (warming) was well along the way before Human-Induced CO2 ever existed at any appreciable levels.
Trying to regulate CO2 emissions is a colossal mistake, one that we cannot afford to let happen.
Tom Rolfes
Tom Rosenstiel, Director, Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, responds:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was startled to read how I was quoted on Scientific American’s website in the item “Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change?” by Robin Lloyd about remarks made at a recent convention. I speak often in public, and I have rarely seen my words so misrepresented.
First, in paraphrasing my comments, Lloyd writes that I said that contemporary media “rarely provide informative discussion of actual science results.” In fact, I said that new technology makes the potential for reporting richer, and that the best reporting is better than ever.
Next, Lloyd juxtaposes a quote from me next to the writer’s own opinion – outside of quotes, as if they were my sentiments: “‘What is shrinking is the reportorial component of our culture in which people go out and find things and verify things,’ [Rosenstiel] said. Truth has little chance to make itself known in the new narrow and shallow public square.” My point was the opposite: The capacity for knowing the truth is actually greater today than ever before, but the process of arriving at it occurs more publicly, more as a dialectic – much the way that people read a newspaper story out loud at the breakfast table and debate it.
Lloyd later writes that I “urged scientists to bypass the media, who are no longer critical intermediaries for reaching the public.” While it is true that the press is no longer the sole intermediary between newsmakers and the public, I never said that scientists ought to ignore or bypass the press, which plays a critical role in our democracy.
The next paragraph puts words in my mouth, suggesting that I recommended that, in their media interviews, scientists should avoid giving “climate deniers” an opportunity “to extract a phrase from one’s communications or answers to questions that fits an anti-science theme.” I don’t believe that I have ever used the phrase “climate deniers.” I’m not sure what it means, since I don’t think anyone denies that there is a climate. I suggested simply that when talking to reporters, it is best that a speaker should make their points clearly so they can’t be taken out of context.
That advice only gets a speaker so far, as this sloppy article shows. I appreciate that Lloyd was trying to synthesize various sessions that were separate discussions occurring at different times and days into a narrative. But the basics of reporting require that the writer not misuse what a speaker is saying to reinforce the writer’s point of view.
One problem with convincing those who really want to learning about global warming (clearly there are many who cover their ears and yell, "I'M NOT LISTENING!!" and recycle the misinformation that litters the internet) is that letters to the editor and blog comments don't allow for the careful explanations necessary to persuade anyone. I believe that we must refer doubters to sources that offer clear, full but succinct answers to the counterclaims that keep resurfacing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best place to find answers to the most persistent challenges to the reality of global warming is at skeptical science.com. It is clear from their blogs that the people who contribute are not making a religion of global warming and not intolerant of new suggestions and information, but intelligent, concerned, and generally respectful of each other's input. Many of the subjects are discussed at basic, intermediate and advanced levels. Not only does Skeptical Science offer discussions about specific denier challenges, but the summary found at the blue box on their home page marked "The Big Picture," may be sufficient to answer many doubts. And there are skeptical science apps for iPhones, Android,and Nokia cell phones that allow one to answer denier challenges on the spot.
Although the number of topics covered is more limited, Climate Crock of the Week videos are admirably clear, use good science, and are witty. Their video list is here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33
If doubters wish to disbelieve global warming, at least learn enough to pose some serious questions. There is plenty of good information out there that is easy to understand and science based. Repeating claims that have been disproved delights the oil billionaires, but contributes to our inability to head off the worst consequences of global warming before it is too late do anything to avert them.
But John, it is you & the people who rely on that site who are the ones who have their hands over their ears. Any new evidence that emerges that does not confirm to the AGW line is instantly dismissed with often weird explanations that get all the heads nodding like an old fashioned revival meeting. I visited the site a few times then left it in disgust. The Antarctic sea ice has been growing for thirty years. It covers 250000 square kilometres more area than it did thirty years ago. I suggest you post a query on that & see what I mean. One of the answers that you will get will be that it is because of the man made hole in the ozone layer. Another will be that this is in fact heating the planet because the ice is insulating the sea water from being exposed to the cold arctic air but it is still mans fault. There is serious doubt by the way that the ozone hole had anything to do with CFCs. It’s a joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sir are the arrogant fool. If you were advocating a shift from carbon based fuel for power generation to nuclear power to cut the waste of burning a valuable resource that has many other uses & at the same time would result in a cleaner environment, that would be one thing, but no, you are promoting AGW as fact on a measurable & dangerous scale. Of course there is such a thing as AGW. If you light a match it is AGW but is CO2 causing AGW a significant factor? No. When there is a barely perceptible increase of perhaps a fifth of a degree over ten years & people like you try to tell us that it is not the sun or orbital patterns or any other natural factor, that the full one fiftieth of a degree per year is the fault of mankind via AGW you can keep me in the sceptical corner, particularly when global temperature is going down at the moment. I have not seen any figures to indicate CO2 has gone down. See also my post 119 above. What gems of wisdom do you have to offer about that? Pratt. People like you also tend to favour a dictatorship that would enable the enlightened ones to compel the adoption of their religion. Wouldn’t you just love such a theocracy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot Only all that, but how do these people get the idea that the average temperature is suppose to stay the same anyway? And at what temperature? The VOSTOC Ice core samples show the worlds temperature has been changing for at least the LAST 400,000 years that these core samples show. For those who havent seen this and those who need to look at it again its here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.shrani.si/pics/slika3yvv68.jpg
This seems to be the whole basis for their arguement by showing co2 and temperatures seemingly to be in sync. But they fail to see the forest 'for the trees. Take as example the increase of 130-140k years ago. Think man caused this? Where are all those evil SUVs and V-8 engines, BIG OIL companies? Yes boys and girls, there were none. So if man is responsible, then just how did early mankind create all that co2? Had he/she (being politically correct) even discovered fire yet?
Then the climate change bunch, in their arrogance, claim the rest of us are suppose to fall in step with their doom and gloom. I'm sorry, you can have all the goofy ideas you want but don't chastise those who won't buy it.
As a friend of mine says, you are entitled to your own opinion but your not entitled to your own set of facts.
AJSP
I have considered Mr. Rosenstiel's comment regarding my story "Science without borders and media unbounded: What comes next?" I concede that the article may not have captured every aspect of the points he made. Overall, however, I maintain that the summary of his statements is accurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStephen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the US there is not much green technology in our infrastructure and there is a constant battle to try to get wind mills, solar panels, or any green technology built. That's why this article is important.
Perhaps universities need to start putting Communications units into some of the science degrees as optional units with a note to students saying "Hey, talking to the media is more perilous than you think, it might be a good idea to learn about media messaging because when you get into postgrad your going to be assaulted by well funded loonies. The problem is, actual climate scientists just aint represented in the media, and in their absence fools like Lord Monckton, Plimer, and the kooky guy from "climate audit", none of whom have any qualifications at all in the field they are claiming expertise in , but the lack of actual climate scientists means the media has no real cromulent source of info. But I don't blame climate scientists for saying "Public? Ugh no thanks!", because on the odd occasion they do pop their heads up, they get utterly crucified by the thinktank smear campaigns (Think Mann et al getting utterly skewered by that horrible climategate frameup).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeres what I'd do if I wasn't so lazy frankly. Start a public register called "Who is to blame?", and just list denialists and politicians who are responsible for this, so that in 25 years time when the shit really starts hitting the fan in a nasty way our kids will know who is responsible for ignoring the science and ruining their world. The list wouldn't include genuine scientific objectors, and frankly there are not many anyway, but rather politicians , right wing thinktanks, and media personel who where responsible for making the muggles think that it isn't happening.
Frankly when NYC sinks beneath the waves (well, maybe thats getting a bit carried away, but you get my drift), those responsible might discover that the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto don't apply in a collapsed society.
Does anyone know if there comparable international data to the Pew study which shows that 59% of Americans acknowledged climate change is happening in 2010 compared to 79% five years earlier? Thanks in advance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat number is the posting you refer to? I cant find it. Many thanks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reasons are many actually, but there are 2 very important factors that have a huge impact on this question. They are:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. America has a generational deficit of parental role models that instill the importance of learning knowledge for self empowerment & collective action in society to affect a positive change for progress that benefits humanity...as it's clear we have a deficit shortage in the area of math & science literacy in America.
2. Maslow's hierarchy of Needs theory: Because the Federal Reserve System controls so much of how this society is governed through it's control of the money supply, means that the vast majority of the population is now working 2,3 and in many cases 4 jobs chasing down scarce dollars in circulation we compete against each other for, means their is very little time in which to conduct moving up the ladder of self-actualization & mental acuity to be a better critical thinker and time to separate the wheat from the chaff on topics important to humanity.
Combine the reality of both of these factors and you largely end up with what you have. A large population of people incapable of critical scientific assessment of the facts.
I guess you would prefer to believe that if my manufacturing industry discharges 100 billion tons of carbon, ethyl methyl dioxins, nitrogen & hydrogen sulfides into the atmosphere out of my smokestacks every year since 1860 there will be absolutely no impact to the air we breathe, the soil we use to grow crops, the water we drink that sustains us and the climate systems around the planet. Yeh..that's the ticket to using your head.. brilliant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell sorry to pop the ol' quintessential balloon, but your leaving out a tremendous amount of empirical evidence like the observations I have seen with my own eyes listed below:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Tornadoes & severe thunder & hail storms in tornado alley during January that has never b-4 occurred in its history.
2. Then in places where it normally has snow showers on a regular basis such as Reno Nevada goes through an entire winter with no snow-never having occurred before.
3. Hiking through the French alps in the summer and seeing glacial retreat at rates getting faster over the course of the last 30 years.
4. Watching huge ice shelves come apart in antarctic and seeing them melt faster then ever b-4.
5. Heat waves along the coastline in northern California and Oregon I have never seen in my 60 year lifetime.
I could go on and on, but the list is endless when you research it.
These are not anomalies you deliberately contemplate when this subject arises, they are events you begin to realize have never occurred before as they are happening in your own lifetime.
Thus the question becomes, not weather climate change is occurring, but what is causing it, and what can we do to manage our lives successfully around it and to develop mitigating solutions when we realize it is our activities that are largely responsible for causing it.
And on that account having worked as an engineer in the aeronautical business for 40 years know full well when you discharge into the environment billions of tons of hazardous waste and smokestack industries byproducts into our air, water, and soil it is ludicrous to believe there is not going to be a negative impact on our environment over time.
I've been sent 2 links which others may find useful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first shows public belief in evolution - the US ranks pretty low in this table, just above Turkey:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=507
I would love to know what the figures are in other countries.
The second is a CNBC documentary on why science seems to be in a bad way in the USA, given the head start the country had for so long:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1125368556#eyJ2aWQiOiIzMDAwMDUyNjA4IiwiZW5jVmlkIjoiL0drRnl1dU5ndmNieXk5N1NCWWwrUT09IiwidlRhYiI6ImluZm8iLCJ2UGFnZSI6IiIsImdOYXYiOlsiwqBMYXRlc3QgVmlkZW8iXSwiZ1NlY3QiOiJBTEwiLCJnUGFnZSI6IjEiLCJzeW0iOiIiLCJzZWFyY2giOiIifQ==
I found both very interesting and thought I'd share them with this group. My take-away is that the issue of climate change cannot be divorced from other debates about science in particular, and education in general in the USA. And all have implications for the role that the USA wants to and is able to play in the world going forward.
Climate science has lost credibility. Science is presenting evidence. It's not the presentation of conjecture of what that evidence might mean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrognosis of what climate change might bring is not science as there are too many variables that are either unknown or can't be measured. Cause and effect become meaningless speculation but are presented as 'scientists say'.
Al Gore's comments on the consequences of global warming should have been condemned by scientists rather than promoted....they were not based on science but some misguided intent. Credibility has been lost and will only be regained when evidence is presented and agenda driven cataclysmic speculation is toned down.
The ruling class has never before had more control over our media.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://frugaldad.com/2011/11/22/media-consolidation-infographic/
Our government has never before been more captured by money.
http://unitedrepublic.org/resources/.
The BBC is a good example of a publicly funded media organization which is not propaganda for the ruling elite. I'm really tired of the market fundamentalists who see the government as the source of all their problems and the so-called free market the solution.
Economics, which is really a social science, has been captured by market fundamentalists who have turned away from reality...
BTW: In a healthy democratic republic, "We the People" watch the watchers...our Democracy is not healthy!
"Island populations retreat from their coastlines to escape rising seas"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you refer me to stories about that? I am unaware of it.
"I have never seen in my 60 year lifetime."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to be disrespectful, but 60 years is not even vaguely enough time to observe the climate and say anything meaningful about it. You weren't in Texas to observe the drought in the 50's or the Dust Bowl for starters, and that's just current events. 60,000 and I might take you seriously.
Actually gravity is a lousy example. Catastrophic climate conditions (aka Global Warming) are better understood than gravity. I count at least two ( Einstein and Quantum mechanics) explanations for gravity and we sti;; are baffled by exactly what it is, though Newton's formulas to measure gravity are still effective. I do not believe any of the "global warming skeptics" would be so concerned if the prescription to cure global warming was more SUV's and more suburban sprawl.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate change issue is tribalism, which is our strongest instinct. If you think the kind of society that would reduce our collective carbon output would be good even if it was not needed for temperature amelioration, you do not doubt the scientific consensus. If producing less carbon strikes you as a commie plot against the sacred American right to waste energy, reason will not budge you. This is why people are so resistant. It is the 1960-70's culture war once again. (the gift that keeps on giving)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""The VOSTOC Ice core samples show the worlds temperature has been changing for at least the LAST 400,000 years that these core samples show. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo? And that proves what?
"""This seems to be the whole basis for their arguement by showing co2 and temperatures seemingly to be in sync."""
Lie.
""" But they fail to see the forest 'for the trees. Take as example the increase of 130-140k years ago. Think man caused this? """
No. That was a slight warming caused by the Milknovitch cycles, which would be sending us into another Ice Age soon if we hadn't messed things up.
"""Where are all those evil SUVs and V-8 engines, BIG OIL companies? Yes boys and girls, there were none. So if man is responsible, then just how did early mankind create all that co2? Had he/she (being politically correct) even discovered fire yet? """
And no one said that humans were responsible for the minor warming event ~130,000 YA.
"""As a friend of mine says, you are entitled to your own opinion but your not entitled to your own set of facts. """
Would that "friend" be the MittBot, by any chance? You should never quote a known pathological liar.