back to article US climate-change skeptics losing support

Not only does a growing majority of Americans believe that global warming is, indeed, underway, but for the first time a majority have come to the conclusion that it's caused by human activity. "Americans' belief in the reality of global warming has increased by 13 percentage points over the past two and a half years, from 57 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Science is not democracy

    It doesn't matter if 97% of Americans believe the Earth is flat and carried on a turtle - it doesn't change anything

    , it will still be on the back of a terrapin......

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It

      It is easy to convince the Americans of pretty much anything and they will believe it, look how many points Mitt Romney is now ahead in the poles.

      1. TheTick

        Re: It

        " look how many points Mitt Romney is now ahead in the poles."

        Those darn right-wing eskimos/penguins!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It

        " look how many points Mitt Romney is now ahead in the poles."

        Nie obwiniaj nas, nie mamy nawet jak Mitt Romney! I wykorzystać krwawe nazwę poprawnie Delbert!

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It

        Ahead in the poles? Is he a champion downhill slalom skier as well....

      4. RICHTO
        Mushroom

        Re: It

        Romney is behind in the poles (just!)

        Given that 20% of Americans can't find their own country on an Atlas it is hardly surprising that a high percentage are ignorant about other things too.....

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It may be true, the American is very worried about global warming but not for the man made reasons you think.

      It's actually the worry of the effects nuking Iran will have. They think this may result in a temperature rise.

      1. jonathanb Silver badge

        Actually it would lead to a nuclear winter as all the dust thrown up from the nuke would block out the sun.

        1. Psyx
          Stop

          "Actually it would lead to a nuclear winter as all the dust thrown up from the nuke would block out the sun."

          Considering that we've already test-detonated far more nukes than it'd take to glass a sizeable chunk of Iran, I think you may be overestimating the ease of bringing about a nuclear winter.

    3. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Science is not democracy

      It doesn't matter if science follows the majority view or not. The importance of this news is that people act on what they believe to be the facts. What people believe shapes the world more than the facts do.

      I know it's not like that when you're coding but dismissing an article as useless because "Science is not democracy" is just plain ignorant.

    4. Aaron Em

      Democracy is not science

      which makes me wonder why figures like these are being cited in support of anything.

      Oh, wait, they're not, are they? They're the PowerPoint version of asking the unconvinced "what's wrong with you?" instead of making a convincing argument.

      Putting it another way, this resembles the sort of thing you'd see used to monitor the progress of a political campaign. I wonder why that is.

    5. Andrew Moore

      Re: Science is not democracy

      We are talking about a people whom a large amount of support the 'theory' of Creationism.

      1. Aaron Em
        Facepalm

        "...whom a large amount of..."

        How in God's name do you get who/whom right, and then promptly fall flat on your face with 'amount' for 'number' and a hideously misplaced preposition? Give me strength...

    6. Psyx
      Go

      Re: Science is not democracy

      "It doesn't matter if 97% of Americans believe the Earth is flat and carried on a turtle - it doesn't change anything"

      It might not change the reality, but it is important.

      It shows just how well the propaganda battle is going for the more evangelical sceptics, in that the media still seeks to paint a 'balanced' viewpoint and that a lot of people genuinely believe that scientists still aren't sure about it all.

      It also might lead to a bit of a political shift. Politicians who have taken a sceptical line in the belief that it is getting them a lot of votes, might now decide to take a more moderate stance in the light of these figures. That in turn will further shift public opinion away from a sceptical line, as a sceptical line will increasingly be seen as a minority opinion. That said, this is US politics, so they'll probably keep on saying whatever their corporate multi-nation sponsors and lobbyists are paying them to support, rather than what the public genuinely believes.

      Which is an interesting point itself: It might prove a good barometer on just how bent politicians are. Because surely only a paid-up lap-dog is going to be barking extremist-denial rhetoric knowing that only a minority of voters agree with it?

  2. Esskay
    Meh

    Cut to the chase

    a) "It's just a demonstration of the success of the left wing propaganda machine making people believe in a fairy tale so that New Energy can profit"

    b) "It's a demonstration that people won't be swayed by the right wing propaganda machine attempting to make people believe in a fairy tale so Old Energy can profit"

    just indicate a) or b) as necessary, and move along...

    1. Notas Badoff

      Re: Cut to the chase

      c) surveys regarding climate should not be done during or after hot summers,

      (I looked at that second graph and immediately wondered what time of year they asked)

      1. solidsoup
        Devil

        Re: Cut to the chase

        d) Given n=~1000, margin of error = +/-3% for each of those lines. As such, all these graphs and incremental changes are completely useless to make any point one way or the other. Now, maybe re-normalizing the data into a shape more reminiscent of a hockey-stick would make for a more effective graph. ;)

        1. John Deeb
          Boffin

          Re: Cut to the chase

          At least it proves the astounding fact that people's opinion actually change. Or at least their moods they have when filling in the questionnaire might vary.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Cut to the chase

            Ot more probably that different people are asked each time, so the results are more or less meaningless; the sample size is also minuscule, so any extrapolation done from it is correspondingly useless. I also wonder how many of them can differentiate between climate and weather?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Cut to the chase

              ...and you can get big opinion shifts depending on how you ask the questions.

              1. Tom 13

                Re: Cut to the chase

                Not to mention how you select your sample...

          2. Psyx
            Boffin

            Re: Cut to the chase

            "At least it proves the astounding fact that people's opinion actually change. Or at least their moods they have when filling in the questionnaire might vary."

            Where as the human mind is great at recognising or discarding evidence given by way of expert advice of others so as to neatly fit our existing opinions, the wiring that runs from our own senses exerts considerably more sway.

            Give America a hot, relentless Summer*, ask them a few questions during it, and regardless of the reason behind it, a lot of people are going to suddenly be coming around to the idea of global warming.

            *Regardless of what weather the rest of the world is experiencing.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No, that's cynicism, not scepticism.

    Scientific truths are quite capable of standing on their own merits, regardless of their inconvenience, and there's no rational reason to dismiss them as political expediencies on one side or the other. Why not apply a bit of critical thinking on your own, even if politicians want to spin scientific theories for their own purposes.

    1. itzman
      Holmes

      Re: No, that's cynicism, not scepticism.

      There are many rational reasons to do with profit to convince people that man made climate change is happening and only your brand of snake oil can stop it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No, that's cynicism, not scepticism.

        Of course there are always rational reasons to lie, cheat, and spin the truth for profit. But what AC said is "there's no rational reason to dismiss [scientific truths] as political expediencies". And I think she's right about that.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No, that's cynicism, not scepticism.

        There's about a million times more relating to convincing people that it isn't happening though, which kind of trumps this hackneyed argument.

  4. scarshapedstar
    Trollface

    I drink Lewis Page's tearshake

    I drink it up

    1. GitMeMyShootinIrons

      Re: I drink Lewis Page's tearshake

      Since when has public opinion been right?

      I believe that there are a substantial number of Muslims who believe women shouldn't drive/have education/show their face - it doesn't make it right. In the 30's, there were quite a few people who thought that Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were the good guys - that wasn't quite true either was it?

      Public opinion surveys prove very little - like any statistics, they are easily skewed - either accidentally through when/where/how/who was surveyed (try this survey at a Republican oil baron's convention!), or by design by vested interests (eg Scots Nats ask Sean Connery a well worded question).

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: I drink Lewis Page's tearshake

        You miss the entire point. People act on what they think is true.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I drink Lewis Page's tearshake

        How to write a post if you're GitMeMyShootinIrons

        1 - Assert that majority public opinion is often (usually?) wrong.

        2 - Quote some minority held opinions as if this is somehow proof of this.

        3 - Fail to notice your logic contradicts itself.

        4 - ???!

        5 - Profit/embarrass yourself.

      3. Psyx
        FAIL

        Re: I drink Lewis Page's tearshake

        "Since when has public opinion been right? I believe that there are a substantial number of Muslims who believe women shouldn't drive* /have education** /show their face*** - it doesn't make it right...blah blah Hitler blah blah...Public opinion surveys prove very little"

        *This is an extreme minority view in Islam, supported by a total of one regime and about half a million people.

        **This is also an extreme minority view in Islam, supported by warlords in Afghanistan who want to keep their subjects stupid and working in opium fields.

        ***This is also an extreme minority view in Islam.

        Brilliant logic there: Assert that public opinion is never right by giving a bunch of examples that AREN'T PUBLIC OPINION, mentioning Hitler, and then going back to asserting that these were cases where the majority was wrong. I can only assume those shooting irons are firmly pointed point-blank at your own feet.

  5. Cartman
    WTF?

    Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

    I'm sure the Reg has covered Lewandowsky and his fraudulent "Skeptic Survey", so anything from "Climate Change Communication" academics is suspect. The fact that the lefties and greenies are supporting CAGW pretty much puts it in the same bin as Marxism and Malthusian crack pottery.

    1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

      "...I'm sure the Reg has covered Lewandowsky and his fraudulent "Skeptic Survey", so anything from "Climate Change Communication" academics is suspect...."

      Indeed. In the interests of balance surely Rik Myslewski should point out that Global Warming surveys from the true believers are by now a by-word for lying and deceitfulness. Remember how the '97% of scientists believe..." figure was achieved?

      Two things stand out. One is that the Global Warming supporters have comprehensively lost the scientific battle - unsurprisingly, since their warming scares do not match measured data, even with corrupt massaging of the figures.

      The second is more interesting. In the 'climate scientists trusted' graph I note that the 'climate scientists' get first place in the 'strongly trusted' section. But they only get third place in the 'somewhat trusted' section. I wonder why this is? Could it be that the survey was biased towards the 'true believers' (who would all go for 'strongly'? The low figure fo 'TV weather reporters' (an obvious allusion to Anthony Watts) seems to bear this out. If we bothered to look in detail at the survey protocols I suspect we'll find that it's just another propaganda puff piece...

      1. BlueGreen

        Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

        > In the interests of balance surely Rik Myslewski should point out that Global Warming surveys from the true believers are by now a by-word for lying and deceitfulness.

        ref please. Because I don't believe there is any.

        > Remember how the '97% of scientists believe..." figure was achieved?

        I'm not sure what you mean and I'm not sure what you're getting at. Please elaborate. With refs.

        > One is that the Global Warming supporters have comprehensively lost the scientific battle

        Ref please. With stats.

        > unsurprisingly, since their warming scares do not match measured data, even with corrupt massaging of the figures

        Interesting. Refs please. With data.

        > If we bothered to look in detail at the survey protocols I suspect we'll find that it's just another propaganda puff piece...

        Better not bother looking and risk finding something that negates your viewpoint.

        BTW what constitutes 'evidence' in your world?

        1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

          Why do you keep asking for 'refs'? Can't you read the original papers?

          Or do you prefer not to read them so that you can still pretend to yourself that they are true? Kind of like the way the Team kept wasting McKintyre's time with variations of their hockey-stick paper so that they could still pretend to themselves that the stats were valid...?

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

            Evening Dodgy Geezer (nee Elderly Geezer?)

            > Why do you keep asking for 'refs'? Can't you read the original papers?

            Ref = reference. IOW (meaning, In Other Words) a reference (meaning a link, pointer or some kind of source) to the original publications. So I *can* read them and decide whether your claims have any merit. I note you still haven't provided them. So please post them so I can decide where exactly the 'lying and deceitfulness' is, because I'm getting a strong inkling it's not where you suggest.

            > Or do you prefer not to read them so that you can still pretend to yourself that they are true?

            Ah no, you misunderstand, I wish to read them. But to do that I have to know where they are. Therefore my request for a 'ref' (which is a 'reference' - see above if you've forgotten already).

            > Kind of like the way the Team kept wasting McKintyre's time with variations of their hockey-stick paper so that they could still pretend to themselves that the stats were valid...?

            Excellent stuff! I do need to check this claim though. Ref please (quick reminder, a ref - meaning a reference - is means of identifying the research supporting your claim. By 'ref please' I am requesting such. By 'please' I mean this <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/please>. This thing starting with "http://" is a URL. It works on the World Wide Web, which is kind of like a really biiiiiiig library with robot librarians. I understand academic papers supporting or refuting a claim often turn up on this World Wide Web, or WWW for short).

            1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

              Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

              Evening Dodgy Geezer (nee Elderly Geezer?)

              And good evening to you. Or rather, good morning! You have my title slightly confused - I was born 'Young Scallywag', and achieved the title of 'Geezer' through the passage of time - 'Dodgy' from my own exertions...

              ...I wish to read them...

              No you don't. I can't believe that, for example, you have not followed the publication of the Lewandowsky survey or have any difficulty in obtaining information on why it is considered to have breached all reasonable norms of applying surveys - there's enough written about the accusations on his own blog!

              Life is too short for me to undertake to re-educate all the warmists in the world. Google must be your friend here. Perhaps you can find out which is "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change"? If you want to read something about the hockey-stick you might like to start with this - I'm sure it's available from a library near you:

              http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&s=books&qid=1268345567&sr=8-1

              1. Psyx
                Facepalm

                Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

                "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science "

                Oooh, goodie: I can tell from the title that I'd get a nice, un-biased, non-predetermined, balanced viewpoint from there!

                1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
                  Thumb Down

                  Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

                  ... I can tell from the title that I'd get a nice, un-biased, non-predetermined, balanced viewpoint from there!..

                  You don't have to read it. But if you won't, you can hardly complain that we don't give you references. It's packed full of them...

                  There is little point providing references for and going over all the fraudulent misrepresentation which is Global Warming continually. But it's worth pointing out new instances as they come to our attention. I see that TallBloke has recently done a little bit of work on how Antarctic Warming data has been manufactured here:

                  http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/roger-andrews-how-nasa-giss-manufactures-warming-in-the-antarctic/

                  You will find that the real Antarctic temperatures are remarkably flat. But the data only goes back to 1955. So GISS took the data from only the peninsular (which did show warming) and used that to project warming back to 1945. Then they took earlier data from the South Orkneys (at 60South - not in the Antarctic at all!) and used that to project warming back to 1905.

                  This is how you get Global Warming. It's standard practice in the well-paid business of manufacturing scary data...

                  1. Psyx
                    Stop

                    Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

                    "You don't have to read it. But if you won't, you can hardly complain that we don't give you references. It's packed full of them..."

                    Then it's not a great reference unto itself really, is it? It's a secondary source. So is a blog.

                    A paperback with a sensationalist title as never really a source unto itself. It's going to be a bunch of spin with some cherry-picked quotes, which cites other sources (hopefully primary but often secondary sources: It's amazing how often paper-back theories cite each other as references in an enormous circle-jerk).

                    Both sides do it, far more than they should do. Their perception is that it strengthens their position, but really it weakens it.

                    1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
                      Stop

                      Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

                      ..Then it's not a great reference unto itself really, is it? It's a secondary source. So is a blog...

                      Actually, I was never claiming it to be a reference unto itself. It's a history. It makes a number of assertions and provides references to back them up. Another thing this argument is full of is people making statements about what they think the other side's position is, and then disproving that strawman. By now, 'calling for references' is simply a rhetorical trick which just degenerates into smearing the relevant paper's author(s).

                      Meanwhile, the science proceeds slowly. We have only just got our MWP back, after 10 years of warmists trying to prove that it never existed. During that time there has been no new work developing AGW theory - instead all the AGW work has been aimed at shoring the theory up in the face of ever more inconvenient data. As each explanation of why the theory 'temporarily doesn't work' fails to convince, a new one is offered. And now that's running into diminishing returns...

                      1. Psyx
                        Holmes

                        Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

                        Side?

                        Personally, I'm not 100% convinced either way. (Though I have a predication towards believing that 7 billion little parasitic bastards sh1tting as hard as they can into any natural environment and short-sightedly consuming every resource as fast as they can is going to screw things up pretty badly in the end. )

                        I'm just a risk assessor who sees humanity's future success as the risk of failure.

                        If there's only a 5% chance of frying yourself by sodding around with your house's electrics and not turning the Mains off, a rational person doesn't say "I'm 95% sure I'll be fine, so I'll take the risk, pass me the screwdriver and another can of beer".

                        Though I'm not sure why I should really give a sh1t, based on the fact that I'm childless and live in a nice comfortable Western country. So I'm alright, Jack.

                      2. BlueGreen

                        Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

                        > Another thing this argument is full of is people making statements about what they think the other side's position is, and then disproving that strawman

                        Hmm. Who said:

                        > In the interests of balance surely Rik Myslewski should point out that Global Warming surveys from the true believers are by now a by-word for lying and deceitfulness

                        and still fails to justify it.

                        Honesty, integrity, decency, respect for the rights of those who come after you that might want to grow up in a world that isn't growing desperate for lack of resources... not your strong point. Arrogant opinion expressed as fact serves you well, as does selfishness.

                        > By now, 'calling for references' is simply a rhetorical trick...

                        Good god, seriously? You really think requesting facts is a "rhetorical trick".

                        There is something strangely shambling and broken roaming this place and I'm starting to feel sorry for it.

                2. Ben Liddicott

                  Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

                  The point is not to get a balanced, unbiased viewpoint, because there is no such thing. Even scientists who are committed to truth, being human, will often fight tooth and nail for their favoured theories.

                  The point is to get opposing views, together with their best aguments, so you can decide between them.

                  1. Marshalltown

                    Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

                    If you hark back to Sir Francis Bacon, the entire point of the scientific method is to separate opinion and expectations from results. Ideally, the investigator performs the experiment without manhandling the datat and then forms or revises opiinons based upon results. However, picking data sets that match one's expectations, or "adjusting" data to reflect what it ought to, violates that intended separation.

                    The problem in "climate science" lies not only in models that can neither forecast nor hind cast accurately, but in the fact that organizations like GISS and CRU "adjust" the raw measurement data beyond recognition. GISS has been consistently adjusting pre-WWII data with neither explanation nor justifications offered. Worse, the adjustments lower historical temperatures, while they elevate modern measurements. The single biggest change seems to be linked to TOBS (time of observation), but that adjustment if valid should apply even more to historical data than to the present, where observations are largely automated. The apparent sign of the adjustment in short appears to be reversed. It would interesting to subtract the trend in adjustment, from the purported trend in global temperature just to see the sign of the residual if there is one.

              2. BlueGreen

                Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

                "...I wish to read them..."

                > No you don't.

                I see. Best attribute the worst of motives than be honest.

                > I can't believe that, for example,... there's enough written about the accusations on his own blog!

                Curiously I don't follow the argument as closely as I did, mainly due to lack of time.

                > Life is too short for me to undertake to re-educate all the warmists in the world

                I wonder if re-education in your world is more about camps than school. Anyway, you appear to misunderstand that I'm after facts. That seems to be a sticking point with you. Facts, not your opinion, exciting though it is (to you).

                > Google must be your friend here. Perhaps you can find out which is "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change"?

                Ah, at last... something solid. Thank you, I will peruse.

                But may I reiterate my previous requests as you seem to not quite 'get' it e.g:

                > In the interests of balance surely Rik Myslewski should point out that Global Warming surveys from the true believers are by now a by-word for lying and deceitfulness.

                Again - no ref. Just your opinion (opinion != fact, although I appreciate this might be difficult for you)

                > Remember how the '97% of scientists believe..." figure was achieved?

                Still no 'reference', although I note that Marshalltown, below, actually did say somehting useful

                > unsurprisingly, since their warming scares do not match measured data, even with corrupt massaging of the figures

                Still no ref. I'm beginning to think you're not being quite honest here.

        2. Marshalltown
          Thumb Up

          That 97% figure

          It is not clear in the article and there might be another "97%" figure floating about cyberspace. However, the original "97%" was a sad day in social science, quite like more recent Australian university fun. The initial "survey" by Doran and Zimmerman in 2009 had over 10,000 surveys sent out. Over 3,000 response were returned. However, the survey author apparently did not like the majority of the responders for some reason and "refined" the sample until he/she had 77 "actively publishing climate research." Of those 77 considered to be active "climate scientists" 75 considered anthropic influences to be an important element in the behaviour of the climate during the last half century. Thus 75/77 * 100 = 97.4%. If I recall correctly, and I may not, this broke shortly before the Climategate fun, which pretty much swamped the available band width.

          Worse though, the specification of "actively publising" highlighted a point that appeared later in the Climategate battle. The emails show that the active AGW theorists were actively working at preventing opposing views from being published. This included threatening to take "important" papers to more friendly (to the A in AGW) venues if certain author's papers were published. At the same time the "friendly" reviews that allies received have occasionally been so bad that papers have been withdrawn for appallingly bad work. Just this summer Gergis et al was withdrawn. It purported to discuss warming in Australian climate where it was shown that really poor - or very biased - data selection had a strong influence on teh result. The biases were so blatant that the paper was permanently withdrawn.

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: That 97% figure

            OI! Dodgy Geezer, over here mate! This is how you do it, with useful facts an' stuff!

            Thanks Marshalltown.

            Okay, to your points. The date you quote matches the date given in the article but not much else does (that I can see). The actual ref'd paper in the reg article is <http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract>. The authors you quote appear as references in this paper, with this immediately following: "Nonetheless, substantial and growing public doubt remain about the anthropogenic cause and scientific agreement about the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in climate change" (I presume this comment agrees with what you said; that it wasn't good work.

            If you read this article you'll find that it's not the one you're quoting and the whole methodology is different from what you gave.

            Re. your 2nd paragraph, I'm not disputing that dirty play occurs and it's unacceptable on either side.

            Thanks again.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

          Hang on BlueGreen, you want references? Sorry I just had to laugh at a MMCC supporter demanding evidence, data, proof, etc. Maybe you should be refused and if you demand via FOI we should delete the information because you should take our word for it! Or cant scientific process be suspended when the shoe is on the other foot?

      2. Dr Stephen Jones
        Alert

        Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

        "One is that the Global Warming supporters have comprehensively lost the scientific battle - unsurprisingly, since their warming scares do not match measured data, even with corrupt massaging of the figures."

        This is true - and Rik Myskewski has not caught up yet.

        But his FAITH is STRONG!

      3. Psyx
        Go

        Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...

        "Two things stand out. One is that the Global Warming supporters have comprehensively lost the scientific battle"

        Two: That perception bias is alive and kicking the crap out of reality in some people's minds.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mouth over reason

    It seems any actual reasoned discussion of whether or not global warming is happening has long been replaced by a tedious slanging match about how many people hold which of the various views, but presented, principally by the media, in a way that suggests that winning the argument is equivalent to fixing the problem. While "what the human race wants" >= "What the human race gets" worked well enough for Xfactor and the Medieval belief in vicious Dog faced men roaming the countryside, it's got a pretty poor track record on real, large scale global problems. The only answer would seem to be a version of the Golgafrincham B Ark on a far larger scale, with the side benefit that the world would be a far more pleasant place without Fox news, lobbyists and the PR industry.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Mouth over reason

      And now that we all have our own private phones (and never put them to our ear/mouth) the only failing of the Golgafrincham wouldn't apply.

      1. Captain DaFt

        Re: Mouth over reason

        Never under-estimate the human ear as a vector of infection!

        (Just look at the AGW debate itself for proof.)

        1. TheRealRoland

          Re: Mouth over reason

          >Never underestimate

          And Snowcrash

  7. mememine69
    FAIL

    *In three debates so far, Obama hasn’t mentioned climate change once.

    *Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.

    *Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.

    *Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.

    *Socialst Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).

    *Not one single IPCC warning of crisis isn’t peppered with “maybes” and “could bes” etc.

    *Help my house is on fire maybe? But you lab coats said we are at the brink of no return, maybe?

    1. Thought About IT
      Unhappy

      Silence from politicians

      "In three debates so far, Obama hasn’t mentioned climate change once."

      That just goes to show how effective the propaganda campaign by so-called sceptics has been to make it politically impossible to take any action to curb AGW. They are winning a pyrrhic victory.

    2. Charles 9
      Thumb Down

      The reasons for the lack of talk on climate are far more prosaic. It's hard to think about climate when you're having trouble keeping a job and paying the bills. The economy is the top subject for both debates, with related subjects getting airtime as well. It's simpler, more subject to the influence of government and, frankly, more direct for people.

    3. Psyx
      FAIL

      "*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier."

      And your point is?

  8. jake Silver badge

    Most Americans also claim to follow one deity or another.

    Doesn't make any religion a scientific fact.

    I weep for my country.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Most Americans also claim to follow one deity or another.

      "Doesn't make any religion a scientific fact.

      I weep for my country."

      But (as Winston Churchill observed) Americans will always do the right thing.

      After they've done everything else.

      IOW. The times are a changing.

      1. Local G
        Facepalm

        "Americans will always do the right thing."

        Did Churchill say the Americans were going to eventually do the right thing in perpetuity?

        Just asking.

    2. Shakje

      Re: Most Americans also claim to follow one deity or another.

      Sure, but science stays out of the arena of whether or not there is a deity. It doesn't publish papers on it, and people don't submit papers on it (of course, what they do in their own time is different). On the other hand you have AGW which has a mass of papers published on it, and the skeptics who, in many cases, refuse to even submit because they think that the whole thing is a conspiracy.

      Do you know what would make their case? SUBMITTING A PAPER. Then, if it gets rejected out of hand, they can put it in the public domain, and people can look at it, dissect it, and ask why it was rejected, assuming there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. If it gets accepted, congratulations, you're taking part in the scientific process, not just mouthing off to journalists and conference centres.

      1. Stoneshop
        Devil

        Re: Most Americans also claim to follow one deity or another.

        Sure, but science stays out of the arena of whether or not there is a deity.

        The inverse, however, is far from true, witness the amount of effort expended by religion to try altering or invalidating scientific findings.

  9. mevets
    Paris Hilton

    love the trust chart...

    TV weather reporters are more trusted than the President, the Opposition and the news reporters? Sure, trust could mean, ‘trust’, as in ‘I trust him to be wrong’ [ eg, PM ]. How could 60% of people avow trust in a weather reporter, especially with respect to weather-related information [ ie. climate]? Put another way, politicians and news reporters have a lot to be ashamed of.

    Paris, because they are all ____!

    1. Don Jefe
      Happy

      Re: love the trust chart...

      I can't stand weather forecasters. If I had known there was a job that allowed me to be wrong at least half of the time I would never have gotten into IT.

      1. Christo
        Happy

        Re: love the trust chart...

        I believe that the TV weather man is a dig (intentional or not that's not for me to decide) at Anthony Watt. He maintains one of the biggest sceptic sites on the net (http://wattsupwiththat.com/).

  10. G R Goslin

    Americans!!

    Americans! Huh!.Who'd believe them. Global warming must be one of the least important fallacies that the Americans believe in

  11. Johnny Canuck

    @ mememine69

    You forgot to mention that the Liberal party under Jean Chretien signed the Kyoto Accord and then did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to meet Canada's goals under the accord - for 8 years. Don't try to blame Harper for the failure of Kyoto in Canada, put the blame where it really lies - at the feet of Canada's Liberal Party. Canadians want to look after the environment, but not at the expense of impoverishing ourselves.

    1. Ian Easson

      Re: @ mememine69

      True, absolutely true.

      A politician's reluctant recognition of reality has little if anything to do with their response to it. They are only concerned with political (social/class) power issues, nothing else.

      (Speaking as a Canadian!)

  12. Rune Moberg

    The arctic

    Ah... Yes, it was warm up north this year and a lot of ice melted. But 'unprecedented'? Funny how that report only goes back to 1979, completely missing the reports from the 1930s or the 19th century (see The New York Times archive) of ice-free waters.

    Indeed, if such events equals 20 years of our CO2 emissions, then the melting witnessed in the 30s would account for 20 years of warming according to the scientist quoted in the article.

    http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm claims CO2 values were as high as now a century ago.

    To me, it doesn't look like we have had much of a warming the past 15 years. I would like a warmer climate with double the CO2 in the atmosphere, but so far nobody has delivered on that promise. I feel cheated.

    1. Thought About IT
      Boffin

      Re: The arctic

      " it doesn't look like we have had much of a warming the past 15 years"

      This graph neatly sums up your understanding of global warming:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

  13. Don Jefe
    Meh

    funny

    Almost every argument against climate change is posed by those who have never spent significant time outdoors. I spend a lot of time outside in many different places for work & it doesn't take a genius to see that things are rapidly changing. Wildlife, fauna, flow of springs & creeks are much different even since 2006.

    Maybe it is caused by people, maybe it isn't, but I don't believe anyone who gets outside would disagree that the overall climate is changing.

    1. John Deeb
      Boffin

      Re: funny

      Then again, Don, I don't think anyone claims anywhere that climate would not be "changing". The discussion is about the when's, why's and who-did-it's. Thank you for joining the discussion though.

    2. JDX Gold badge

      Re: funny

      Well done Don for beautifully illustrating the kind of ignorance this subject is plagued with.

    3. itzman

      Re: funny

      That rather depends on where you get outside.

      Her a decade of warming in te 90s has been followed by no change in te noughties and falling tempeartures in the tenses.

      In fact the climate here this year resembles the 1950s...

      Is the climate changing? I'd say 90% of people would say yes.

      Does man made activity affect the climate at all? Id say 90% of people would say yes.

      Is the climate change of the last 10,000 years largely due to man's activity? Id say 99% of people would say no.

      And the 64,000 dollar question - is today's climate change overwhelmingly down to human activity? And I suspect around 70% would say no.

      And the really important question. If today's climate change IS down to human activity, will bankrupting the West's economy building windmills that don't work, make any difference if China continues on its present course?

      And there we probably have 100% saying no it wont.

      You can spin the result of any loaded question questionnaire anyway you want - why does it matter what people think? Because when you are marketing a product - renewable energy, so called - what is important is not whether climate change is happening, but whether people believe its happening.

      Even if climate change is happening and it is overwhelmingly man made, there is zero chance that cold starving people wont dig up coal and burn it or cut down trees to keep warm. Faced with the prospect of a marvellously preserved planet with no one on it, or a rather battered and hot planet with a few people left to enjoy it, which would you prefer?

      1. Charles 9

        Re: funny

        "Even if climate change is happening and it is overwhelmingly man made, there is zero chance that cold starving people wont dig up coal and burn it or cut down trees to keep warm. Faced with the prospect of a marvellously preserved planet with no one on it, or a rather battered and hot planet with a few people left to enjoy it, which would you prefer?"

        The concern is that the latter creeps itself all the way down and becomes the worst of both worlds: a torn-up world with NO people in it (and perhaps a lot less life altogether than before). Given the choice, mother nature and Luddites would take the former. At least that way, nature can try again.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: funny

          You have put your finger on a crucial part of the problem.

          If us in the "first world" still had to dig up the coal or cut down the trees we would use a whole lot less because there is a natural limit to both, by one person, in one day.

          Energy use for us is too easy, foot on the gas, turn the thermostat up.

          Daily we use many times more energy than those with shovels and axes mainly due to the industrial revolution, we have become totally disconnected from the real costs or affects.

          If the man with axe cuts a few trees down more than is sustainable he has to walk further to the next wood or move home, to us it's all hidden and academic.

          Just because we consume by proxy does not mean the problem is someone else's.

  14. JDX Gold badge

    near spot-on warming predictions found in a 30-year-old paper

    You mean after all this time they managed to find one paper with predictions that are matched by subsequent facts? Never mind the thousands of papers which predicted different things,

  15. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Unhappy

    I love these

    kinds of studies, providing vast amounts of ammunition for all sides to jump up and down and wave under people's noses.

    No doubt the politicians will sieze on this and spend endless hours debating how to make people see the world their way instead of saying "You build nuclear power stations NOW"

  16. mememine69
    Thumb Up

    Climate Change is Dead

    Wanna lose an election? Then just keep threatening the voter’s kids with CO2 deaths.

    *In three debates so far, Obama hasn’t mentioned climate change once.

    *Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.

    *Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.

    *Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.

    *Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).

    *Not one single IPCC warning of crisis isn’t peppered with “maybes” and “could bes” etc.

    *Help my house is on fire maybe? But you lab coats said we are at the brink of no return, maybe?

    *Climate Change Science and its 26 years of needless panic is the new Reefer Madness.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Skeptic losing ground

    Deniers are losing ground as more become skeptics Shirley?

  18. mememine69
    Thumb Up

    REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed a crisis was exaggerated.

    Why won’t your Gods of science who say we “could” be at the point of no return, say it “WILL” happen, not just “might” happen. The exaggeration is obvious to progressives.

    Not one single IPCC warning is without; “maybe” and “could be” and “likely”………

    Climate blame ………………the new REEFER MADNESS.

    Let's make a deal, when science says it "WILL" happen, I'll join the dozens of climate blame protesters worldwide to save the planet from boiling from SUV gas.

    Stupid Mother Nature eh?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed a crisis was exaggerated.

      Come back when you've read a tiny bit of Karl Popper's work on the philosophy of science.

      Because scientists NEVER say it will/will not happen.Why? because they have open minds.

      E.g. Not 'the sun will rise tomorrow' but 'given the current state of knowldege it is probable that the sun will rise tomorrow'. So saying that 'the earth is likely to xxxxx in the next 20 years" is as definite a statement as you saying 'the sun will rise tomorrow".

      Which is why the ignorant/biased/bigotted have and advantage when they demand 'proof'.

      1. Ben Tasker

        Re: REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed a crisis was exaggerated.

        Not sure anyone here has asked for 'proof'.

        What I'm sure a lot would like to see is empirical evidence, that has been properly and thoroughly peer-reviewed. Oh, and of course, we'd like to see all the raw data so that we can (in theory) replicate the methods to see if the same result is returned. Without that, you might as well be waving a holy book around and calling it 'proof'.

        Personally, I'm a skeptic (could you tell?), but I can see two groups on the Pro-AGW side. Those who are only in it to make money (let's face it, some of those on either side) and those who truly believe. The problem is, no debate is actually being had. One side are screaming about how we're killing the earth, and often failing to provide real evidence, whilst the other side are stuck asking for evidence (or in some extreme cases, screaming back).

    2. Psyx
      FAIL

      Re: REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed a crisis was exaggerated.

      "Why won’t your Gods of science..."

      Don't capitalise that. 'gods' is not a name.

      "who say we “could” be at the point of no return, say it “WILL” happen, not just “might” happen. The exaggeration is obvious to progressives."

      Because they're not morons who deal in absolutes, like religious maniacs do.

      "the new REEFER MADNESS."

      There is/was no such thing. As a point of reference, the world would be a hell of a better place if we all sat down and had a smoke together.

      "Let's make a deal, when science says it "WILL" happen, I'll join the dozens of climate blame protesters worldwide to save the planet from boiling from SUV gas."

      Please don't. I don't want an idiot like you near me.

  19. JeffyPooh
    Pint

    It disgusts me...

    ...to see the word "belief" being used in what should be a pure scientific debate. The consensus group need to address the sketical group with logic and reason (always, even if they think that the skeptics are insane). It's called "The Scientific Method". Allowing the debate to slide into religious vocabulary should be a capital crime.

  20. abedarts

    Behind the curve again

    I'm sure I just read that according to a Met Office study global warming stopped 16 years ago, and if they say so it must be right eh?

    I suppose I can't blame our American friends for not seeing it, I doubt they've heard of the Met Office but this news did get around a bit, after all the Daily Mail reported it. Oh wait they don't get that either.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Behind the curve again

      No, they didn't. That was reported, and the Met office immediately put out a statement contradicting it.

      Here, a reference, since I care about primary sources (contrast: "I'm sure I read...")

      http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

      1. peter_dtm
        FAIL

        Re: Behind the curve again

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/

        and from WUWT

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/21/update-and-confirmation-of-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

        Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded:

        ‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement . . . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.

        ‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’

        The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

        end quote

        Note the last paragraph. Note the 'very small amount of warming in the 21st Century' is in fact LESS then the ERRORS and therefore the correct statistical statement is that the warming trend is 0.0 deg C/ decade +/- 0.15 deg C (as the errors are approximately 0.15 deg C ).

        SO

        Phil Jones (CRU) thinks ther is no current significant raise in Global Temperature; the Met Office AGREES with this (even if they weasel their words).

        Oh; and look at the Arctic sea ice recovery; as well as the Antarctic sea ice extent (Antarctic SEA ice; note : the ice floating on the sea AROUND the Antarctic continent). References to source material available from http://wattsupwiththat.com (that is SOURCE material) see the References Tab --> Sea Ice...

        CAGW - probably not; but the climate - it keeps on changing

      2. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Behind the curve again

        ...That was reported, and the Met office immediately put out a statement contradicting it....

        Odd, that. I read the statement. And it didn't contradict the Mail's piece.

        The Mail said that warming had stopped for the last 16 years and that temperatures were flat. The Met Office said that temperatures were indeed flat, but this might be normal. Oddly, that contradicted all the earlier work on this subject (look up Tamino) which indicated that a 5 year flat stretch might happen, but a 15 year one should prompt re-examination of the hypothesis.

        Then they added that the last 10 years held some of the highest temperatures in their data. Which was nothing to do with the original Mail piece, but was included to try to draw attention away from the problem of the halted warming...

        1. Jerome Fryer

          Repeating the same article, when he knew it to be false

          The first question and answer reported:

          http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

          -----

          Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

          The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

          As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

          Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

          -----

          Just in case you don't follow that reply: this means, "No, there was a warming trend -- you don't know what you're doing".

          Fiddling with data that you don't understand will produce spurious results, and this rehash of an earlier failure to comprehend the data appears to be entirely politically motivated given that the Met Office already explained his errors and corrected him earlier.

          http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Most sheeple will believe anything

    Most people believe whatever they read, hear or are told even when it's complete rubbish.

  22. Steven Roper
    Facepalm

    Wait until

    their electricity bills triple because of it. We'll see how many of them still believe in AGW when they can no longer afford to run their shinies any more.

    1. Dr Stephen Jones
      Holmes

      Re: Wait until

      People make sacrifices if they think it is worth the pain. Any American action to reduce CO2 is pointless, because the developing countries emit more, and simply ignore what the USA does.

      Steve McIntyre pointed this out recently. Even if the USA reduced CO2 emissions to zero, China's output today is greater than the USA's emissions in 2005.

      The propaganda is not working because no propaganda to reduce CO2 emissions in the USA and Europe will now work.

      Your got post got downvoted because the Greens cannot accept this reality.

      1. Terry Barnes
        Holmes

        Re: Wait until

        That's illogical though isn't it? A bit like saying that there's no point you not buying a posh new car and HiFi because your wife just spent a ton of money buying new clothes and you're already in financial trouble.

        If other countries are increasing their use, then more technologically advanced countries need to increase their speed of reduction. Essentially you're describing the philosophical problem of "The tragedy of the commons".

      2. peter_dtm
        Happy

        Re: Wait until --> Dr Stephen Jones Posted Sunday 21st October 2012 15:34 GMT

        quote

        Your got post got downvoted because the Greens cannot accept this reality.

        end quote

        Small correction Dr Jones - the 'this' is superfluous :

        Your got post got downvoted because the Greens cannot accept reality.

  23. sean.fr
    FAIL

    No support for more action

    The key point is not “is there warming”. Rather, where on a scale of serious problems would you put warming compared to other competing serious problems, like heath care, debt, employment, immigration, crime, tax levels? Do you believe the present level of money and regulation put in place by the USA government is too much, about right, or too little? If electors wanted more green money and regulation from government the candidates would be promising it.

    1. peter_dtm
      FAIL

      Re: No support for more action : sean.fr --> Posted Saturday 20th October 2012 21:07 GMT

      No

      It is more like trying to bail out the Titanic with a teaspoon; you would be better employed building a raft or other ADAPTIVE measure to ensure you survive.

      The fact that the ship is more like HMS Victory (ie not only NOT sinking; but because she's not at sea; actually incapable of sinking) makes your comparison even more inappropriate.

      Just remember - the climate changes; always has; always will

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Unfortunately

    While popular opinion does not always make science, it certainly influences policy.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    As someone who considers himself too ill-versed in the science to draw a reasonable conclusion, and as someone who voiciferously opposes measures to force behavior change in the name of efficiency (lack of 100watt incandescents, for example), and as someone who is continually annoyed by luddites and extremist do-gooder environmentalists who oppose nuclear power... As someone in all of those categories...

    ...I have to say that the boiling rage of people like the 'skeptics' in this thread inclines me strongly to take a default position in favor of man-made warming. When faced on one side with ill-paid (relatively) scientists who have no motivation to take a false stand in favor of GW, and on the other side with the collective barbaric yawp sounded by incensed-to-insensibility forum posters and far-right bookmongers (whose record of correctness in other areas is, to say the least, sketchy) I have a pretty strong circumstantial case.

    Honesty, I'd kind of rather be wrong with the scientists than right with the frothing forumites and apoplectic authors.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      best comment ever.

    2. InnerCynic
      Mushroom

      Say what?

      Have no motivation? Are you nuts?! Those involved in pimping the global warming hysteria are most certainly funded or have their dirty mitts in tax-funded pies that the rest of us will be bent over and forced to pay up for. Don't be so naive.

    3. peter_dtm
      Holmes

      --> David W. Posted Sunday 21st October 2012 02:02 GMT

      Do your self a favour

      Find out how much money 'Big Oil' donates to Green Peace & WWF (Shell is one of WWF biggest donnors)

      How may CAGW proponent climate scientists are wholly funded by Governments who are not exactly neutral ?

      See if you can find out where people like Steve MacIntyre and Anthony Watts earn their funding - and how much they actually get ?

      Now come back with just who is 'ill paid' (How much does Phil Jones of CRU earn ? How about the Head of the Met Office ?)

      You do know the founders of GreenPeace left in disgust because of the political take over ?

      Have a look at a few web sites; try asking questions on say WattsUpWithThat and SkepticalScience - you may well be insulted on both; but give it a go :

      Question 1 : Please explain why Solar input is effectively ignored by the IPCC; surely the SUn has more influance than CO2 ?

      Question 2 : Please explain why CO" is not causing 2 degrees per century global warming; after all the IPCC says this is so

      and ask some of those questions you may have about the science behind AGW.

      Boiling Rage - have you read some of the things said about people who do not BELIEVE in CAGW; - they are compared to Holocaust Deniers (the term denier is deliberate).

      Hanson wants them to be tried for War Crimes

      Have a look at what happened to Dr Judith Curry when she dared suggest that there should be DISCUSSION between the Catastrophic Climate Change believers and the skeptical community - which includes Physicists and Statisticians.

      Research the inability of so called deniers to get peer reviewed papers published and the propaganda war (IPCC response to being caught out using WWF non-peer reviewed papers purporting to show glacier melt down was to shout VODOO SCIENCE at the people who demonstrated the nonsense published by the IPCC)

      IF CO2 is not a problem what happens to :

      the IPCC jamborees

      RoC (tax on energy-- $$$)

      Carbon Exchanges (where RoC are supposed to be traded for $$$$; Al Gore founded the Chicago RoC exchange)

      Windmills

      Bio Fuels

      the whole renewable energy scam (I speak the word scam as an engineer)

      Taxes

      The doubling of your lecky bills over the next 5 years ..

      The crippling of the economy in the UK -- EU -- USA as pointless restrictions on cheap energy push us back to a feudal existence

      and so on and so on...

      FWIW - The climate changes; always has and always will; the skeptics question the influence of CO2 and man's OTHER activities on the climate; and especially question the CATASTROPHIC projection of some shoddy models.

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: --> David W. Posted Sunday 21st October 2012 02:02 GMT

        ...Have a look at a few web sites; try asking questions on say WattsUpWithThat and SkepticalScience - you may well be insulted on both; but give it a go :

        Question 1 : Please explain why Solar input is effectively ignored by the IPCC; surely the SUn has more influance than CO2 ?

        Question 2 : Please explain why CO" is not causing 2 degrees per century global warming; after all the IPCC says this is so

        and ask some of those questions you may have about the science behind AGW...

        If I may, I would like to take a guess at the answers to those questions from each camp. W=warmists, S=Skeptics.

        1 - Why ignore the Sun?

        W - The heat input from the Sun has been fairly stable over this period, and it has not varied sufficiently to explain the increase in temperatures.

        S - But the Solar magnetic activity cycle HAS varied in line with the observed temperatures. And Dr Svenmark has proposed a mechanism whereby this could easily cause the observed temperature variation.

        W - We don't accept unproven hypotheses.

        2 - Why does the increase in CO2 not result in recent warming?

        W - There may often be pauses due to natural cycles overwhelming the signal. A few years may easily show a drop. But the signal is still there. We would only get worried if the temperature paused for a long period - say, 15 years.

        S - But it's been 16 years with no warming now....

        W - Sorry - did we say 15? We meant 20....

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: --> David W. Posted Sunday 21st October 2012 02:02 GMT

          "But the Solar magnetic activity cycle HAS varied in line with the observed temperatures"

          No, it just hasn't. If it had skeptics would be constantly showing the graph that depicted it rather than just claiming it.

        2. Jerome Fryer

          The usual strawman tactics?

          "1 - Why ignore the Sun?"

          It *is* factored in. Pretending that it isn't is an absurd lie -- absurd because it has been in a period of lowest activity during the highest spikes in global temperature. (Less energy input from the Sun leads to *higher* temperatures?)

          "2 - Why does the increase in CO2 not result in recent warming?"

          It does. Thus we see warming tracking CO2.

          "S - But it's been 16 years with no warming now...."

          No, it hasn't. Even ignoring correcting for the usual El Nino / La Nina cycle it has *still* increased. When the known cyclical fluctuations *are* factored in the trend is still increasing, as predicted by the various studies.

          You'd do better to read what the scientists are saying yourself instead of basing your opinions on deliberate quote-mining mixed with either incompetence in data interpretation / or deliberate manipulation.

          The earlier response:

          http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

          The response to the re-hashed lie:

          http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

          (Now go ahead and claim that the scientists -- who get paid the same regardless of what their conclusions are, BTW -- are somehow the liars while the professional liars -- sensationalist journos, politicians, and right wing "Think Tanks" -- are breaking with form and presenting the truth; without any qualifications to even comprehend the data they are looking at.)

          1. peter_dtm
            FAIL

            Re: The usual strawman tactics?

            Quote Jerome :

            (Now go ahead and claim that the scientists -- who get paid the same regardless of what their conclusions are, BTW

            end quote

            Totally wrong. Scientist get paid IF they get research grants; or work for an academic institution that gets research grants OR they work for private industry. According to many non skeptics; scientists paid by Bi Oil or other private companies can not be trusted (but why then can scientists paid by Big Government (the source of all those grants) be any more trusted ?)

            So 'research scientists' (most of the Climate scientists fall into this category) are totally reliant on the Government giving them grants.

            Governments LIKE catastrophic global warming; so if your livelihood depended on it; would you promote research that would bolster catastrophic climate change or would you swim against the tide ?

            And just like the drug company scientists appear to be economical with the truth regarding the data from ALL their tests; why would big government paid scientists not be biased into the same habits ?

            Regarding the met office's response - see the response from Dr Judith Curry to the Met Office; she says (I give the links elsewhere on this thread) that the Met Office's statement and their response did NOT disagree OR refute David Rose. Worse; the Met Office totally failed to admit/point out that the 'trend' they could find is LESS THAN THE ERRORS - therefore as any statistician/engineer/scientist knows that means there was NO warming within statistical bounds or to put it more correctly the trend IS 0 deg C per decade plus/minus 0.015 deg C

            So just who is telling the WHOLE truth (some thing DR Judith Curry actually suggests would be a good thing for the Met Office to start doing - see her article)

            Oh; and don't ever forget even Phil Jones from CRU agrees there has been no statistically significant warming

            so somehow I don't think the 'There's been no warming for the last 15 years' is any thing other than the scientific truth; and remember; it was the (big government paid) Climate Scientist who claimed that if there was no warming for at least 16 years then they would have a problem. So who do you trust ? The scientists wh say 'if there is no significant warming for 16 years there is a problem' or some non scientist like AL Gore; Big Renewables and other interested parties ?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Facepalm

              Re: The usual strawman tactics?

              "Governments LIKE catastrophic global warming; so if your livelihood depended on it; would you promote research that would bolster catastrophic climate change or would you swim against the tide ?"

              I don't know about the UK, but I can tell you that in the US, the government has most assuredly not been conspiring to pump up worries about global warming. During GWB's tenure, in fact, I seem to recall specific efforts being made to discourage academics from coming to the, er, wrong conclusions - or at the very least, efforts to specifically ignore any work done in the area. And even Obama's administration has hardly set the world afire (ahem) with financial or political support for AGW.

              The US has hosted a large percentage of academic work in the area, and the suggestion that the government has pushed for results suggesting AGW is patently absurd, somewhat like suggesting that the Catholic church has pushed for research proving the efficacy of birth control.

              I would think that the US' refusal to sign Kyoto would have helped make this fairly clear, but apparently not.

              I also find the use of the term 'big government' rather interesting. Are there governments which are -not- big? Somalia's, perhaps? Would you be more inclined to trust the judgments of scientists funded by the government of, say, Liechtenstein? It's probably pretty small. Maybe Monte Carlo?

              It's all so confusing.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They missed important questions from the survey

    Q:

    How many Americans who think that Humans are responsible for Global Warming ALSO believe that the Earth was created by God in 6 days about 5000 years ago and that God will save us all.

    i.e. Religious Creationists.

    As it seems that it is not mandatory to teach this in schools I guess that the numbers would be pretty high.

    In certain parts of the USA the simple act of NOT going to Church on a Sunday will make you an outcast in that community.

    Even (to them) the sky high price of Gas is not getting them out of their SUV's and Pickups in any great numbers. So the US is not going to meet any of the targets set for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

    Yes folks, the US is a shallow as it is shown on TV.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Mushroom

      Re: They missed important questions from the survey

      "How many Americans who think that Humans are responsible for Global Warming ALSO believe that the Earth was created by God in 6 days about 5000 years ago and that God will save us all."

      Well, given that support of GW trends tends to skew left, and given that religious fundamentalism tends to skew (far) right, I'd say there's... yeah, pretty much no overlap.

      Yes folks, Anonymous Coward really doesn't know as much about the US as he thinks he does.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Survey

    So, basically, it was warm this past year and people read about the record melt. Therefore there must be AGCC.

    I'd be happier to read that 100% of peole surveyed answered. "Why are you asking me? I'm not a climatologist".

  28. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
    Flame

    What a lot of hype over nothing...

    This survey - it's a public opinion survey. It purports to measure how people feel AT A PARTICULAR TIME.

    So let us look at the time when it was commissioned. I see the OP states:

    "Americans' belief in the reality of global warming has increased by 13 percentage points over the past two and a half years, from 57 percent in January 2010 to 70 percent in September 2012."

    Aha! I recall that the Americans had a particularly hot summer this year, and there were a lot of frenzied pieces in the press about how Global Warming had arrived at last. So what the survey says is that if you ask a random selection of the uneducated public about whether Global Warming is happening in the middle of a heatwave, you will get 13% more saying 'Yes' than if you ask them in the middle of winter.

    You know, I could have guessed that without paying for a survey. And so, I suspect, could the climate activists. Which is probably why they timed the surveys the way they did.

    The reason warmists are stooping to cheap tricks like this is that they can no longer engage by publishing scientific papers. More and more modern research is now showing the early scaremongering assertions to be hopelessly exaggerated, and often plain wrong. So they are left pushing political and public relations propaganda. And not too well either. You might have thought they should have saved their money. Ah, silly me - of course, it's not THEIR money, is it? It's probably tax funded, so it's OUR money they're spending...

  29. Msnthrp
    WTF?

    Question

    Would some AGW proponant please tell me why the last ice age ended 8,000 years ago? Could it have been manmade?

    1. RICHTO
      Mushroom

      Re: Question

      Because of natural changes to the Earth - which take thousands of years to make the sort of changes we are now seeing in decades. Technically we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

      No it couldnt have been humans unless there was some significant cause of pollution that we are not aware of.

      Current global warming tracks the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (which is known as largely man made) since the Industrial Revolution very well...As does temperature versus CO2 during the Ice Ages.....

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Question

      Ice ages are primarily caused by Milankovitch cycles:

      The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.

      Such changes in movement and orientation alter the amount and location of solar radiation reaching the Earth.

  30. Jtom
    FAIL

    Can you say BIASED? I knew you could!

    ""Americans' belief in the reality of global warming has increased by 13 percentage points over the past two and a half years, from 57 percent in January 2010 to 70 percent in September 2012," report the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication in a survey published this week."

    LOL! Take a look at the dates of the polls! The last one is the ONLY POLL TAKEN AT THE END OF SUMMER. Try taking one in February, and you will get a completely different result. They compare a January poll to a September poll. What the heck do you think people will say after sweating the whole summer versus freezing their keisters off in winter?

    Wake me up when they can compare polls taken in May or November when people no longer have frostbite or heatstroke on their minds. Until then, this is only garbage designed to push an agenda.

  31. paulc
    Mushroom

    Brainwashing the young...

    they've been steadily indoctrinating them in the schools for the past ten years and this is why the belief in man made global warming is so strong over there...there is no science to back it up, just faith and constant denial of the true scientific process... get them while they're young and malleable and you can shape them any way you want...

    They refuse to accept the evidence that the Earth is now entering a cooling phase.

    Boing Boing and Slashdot are particularly filled with true believing warmists...

  32. Michael Nidd
    Unhappy

    Who made those graphs?

    The points are spaced 14, 5, 11, 6, 4, and 6 months apart, but plotted at regular intervals.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Slightly changed, this could have been the title

    of an article that could have been published 2000 years ago - Pagans losing ground to Christians - bring on the new religion - YOU VILL NOT QUESTION CLIMATE CHANGE OR VE VILL SHOOT YOU.

    Its all bollocks, the human race will eventually die out (hopefully), the planet will eventually be destroyed and a large number of things will happen between now and then and we will have very little control.

    The only reason for 'climate change' is to raise taxes - get with the program, pay more, do more for less and dont ask why.

  34. Senior Climatologist

    Senior Climatologist

    No surprise. Yale and GMU were commissioned by the AMS and other climate advocacy groups to develop the 'messaging' that would cause more Americans to buy the global warming mantra that government has spent $39B to foster (for political reasons). That is how we moved from global warming to climate change to climate disruption to the hyping of extremes. As Eisenhower warned in his farewell address remembered for his military industrial complex comment that "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded....we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." The elitists are trying to sway the public to support the big lie...blaming man for natural climate change to achieve it alternative goals of one world governance and as the UN's IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated openly "...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." These liberal institutions are destroying science and brainwashing our youth and are despicable.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Senior Climatologist

      If you are a climatologist, then I'm the queen of Sheba.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Senior Climatologist

      You heard it here first, folks - the US government has been pushing AGW in order to facilitate wealth redistribution to poor nations and to achieve the goal of one-world government. And all of this either during the Bush administration or with Republicans in control of the House.

      Christ, for the past two years, Congress has been refusing to raise taxes because they (really, it's true, ~50% of Republicans in general believe this) feel that it's unfair for the rich to have to pay as high a percentage as the poor. Unfair to the rich, that is.

      And they're plotting for redistributing the US' wealth to poor nations while they're at it? Yuhhh huh.

  35. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

    I object to the term 'climate skeptic'

    "Of course, that lack of surety might be perfectly reasonable, seeing as how climate-change skeptics are, well, skeptical – an honorable trait."

    Sadly, this is not he case; most of those who would call themselves 'skeptics' are nothing of the sort. Skepticism is all about not believing what you are told, but having to see the evidence for yourself. Arguably the most skeptical in this sense are the climate scientists, who overwhelmingly agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, after having studied the ahrd science and constructed the predictive models.

    The least skeptical are ironically those who call themselves skeptics, and who believe whoever shouts the loudest or comes up with the most convincing sound-bites or conspiracy theory. I doubt any of these people have ever actually read and understood the science behind the matter, in the same way that the fundie religious nutjobs who shout about evolution being 'only a theory' fail (and often actively refuse) to understand the meaning of the word theory in a formal context.

  36. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      "the moderators here are loserz"

      Says the chap putting a Z at the end of words, hm? :-)

      C.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Well, at least he didn't say 'loosers'. Take solace in the minor victories, that's what I always say.

        Or at least, I did just now.

      2. jake Silver badge
        Pint

        ::horselaugh::

        You owe me a KeyBr0ad, C. ;-)

        Ta. This round is on me :-)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like