The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Scientists Decide Americans Are Too Stupid to Understand Global Warming

Posted on | January 17, 2014 | 129 Comments

The science is settled!

New polling data show the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of an asserted climate crisis. Alarmists have responded by claiming Americans are not smart enough to make proper decisions on climate policy.
The Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication released a survey showing only 15 percent of Americans are “very worried” about global warming, compared to 23 percent who believe global warming is not happening at all. A plurality of Americans — 38 percent — believe global warming is happening but are only “somewhat worried” about it. . . .
Survey author Edward Maibach bemoaned the results and claimed Americans do not understand global warming issues.
“Our findings show that the public’s understanding of global warming’s reality, causes, and risks has not improved and has, in at least one important respect, gone in the wrong direction over the past year,” said Maibach.

This explains everything. Once there is an Official Scientific Consensus, only stupid Americans remain skeptical.

 


Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    From your link, we’ve had global sea level rise about 200mm since 1880. Even the IPCC at its most alarmist (SRES A1B upper end) says it’s not going to be over 500mm by 2100 or under 2 feet.

    I’m sorry but this isn’t science. It’s alarmism with a capital A. We don’t have “many feet” of sea level rise baked in because of thermal lag.

  • NiCuCo

    Worst case sea level rise by 2100 3.5′, by 2500, 16.5′.

    “Sea level projections to AD2500 with a new generation of climate change scenarios”

    Sea level rise over the coming centuries is perhaps the most damaging side of rising temperature (Anthoff et al., 2009). The economic costs and social consequences of coastal flooding and forced migration will probably be one of the dominant impacts of global warming (Sugiyama et al., 2008). To date, however, few studies (Nicholls et al., 2008; Anthoff et al., 2009) on infrastructure and socio-economic planning include provision for multi-century and multi-metre rises in mean sea level. Here we use a physically plausible sea level model constrained by observations, and forced with four new Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenarios (Moss et al., 2010) to project median sea level rises of 0.57 for the lowest forcing and 1.10 m for the highest forcing by 2100 which rise to 1.84 and 5.49 m respectively by 2500. Sea level will continue to rise for several centuries even after stabilisation of radiative forcing with most of the rise after 2100 due to the long response time of sea level. The rate of sea level rise would be positive for centuries, requiring 200–400 years to drop to the 1.8 mm/yr 20th century average, except for the RCP3PD which would rely on geoengineering.

    Global and Planetary Change 80-81 (2012) 14–20

    http://kaares.ulapland.fi/home/hkunta/jmoore/pdfs/jev_moore_grin_Glob_Ch_2012.pdf

  • NiCuCo

    See the article: “Voices: Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing science”

    “Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons,”

    “These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions.”

    http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-scie

  • Mike G.

    It’s a damn shame you don’t know how to post links…or was that on purpose? Page not found.

  • NiCuCo
  • Ralph Snyder

    How dare you, sir, infer that Americans are stupid! We may be ill-informed. Our analytical abilities may be lacking. But we are not stupid.

    You are a cad for asserting that we cannot learn what the facts are or that we cannot come understand the consequences of those facts.

    For shame, that you cast such aspersions on the American public.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    That study has so many new models in it that it’s barely out of diapers. The weasel wording to include the high degree of uncertainty is a first class effort.

    I agree that somebody made a model worse than I’d read. I’m not particularly worried about the likelihood of any of these scenarios coming to pass.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    The best thing you can do is to put your mouth on a car exhaust pipe and inhale that for the rest of your life..

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra
  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    From a quick read, if humans stopped breathing but all other sources of CO2 pollution like cars, etc. continued, the pollution problem would continue just the same. In other words, the core of problem is not how much CO2 humans produce by breathing.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    A scientist who dumps his emails in violation of the law to hide his machinations of the data and its presentation, as the East Anglia group conspired to do, is not honest, and neither is anyone who defends them.
    Why anyone who believed the science was on their side would undertake to prevent skeptics from being published in journals by operating behind the scenes or participate in outright misrepresentations of data is something which needs to be explained to me.

  • Pablo

    Given that we seem incapable of predicting it, what are the chances that we can regulate it and what do you suppose we should spend trying?

  • http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com Unix-Jedi

    CO2 isn’t the problem.

    Actually, we don’t know what the problem is.

    Actually, we don’t know if we HAVE a problem.

    Yes, the warmists cite CO2, cause it’s simple and easy to measure.

    400 PPM was supposed to be doomsday. We ripped past it without any sign. All the models showing that as critical?

    Whoops.

    There’s several root problems with the CO2 as/creating a problem hypothesis, the single most critical is that there’s a presumption that more CO2 = higher temp, thus it’s causative. CO2 is the driver.

    That’s unproven. It’s equally plausible to presume that higher temps equal more free carbon dioxide, and the temperature is the driver.

  • http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com Unix-Jedi

    Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth.

    They’re wrong.

    See the part about us not being smart enough to understand? (IE, buy what the “smart guys” are peddling?) I can’t tell if you’re trolling to be funny or not.

    Simple quiz. What percent of the atmosphere is CO2?

  • http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com Unix-Jedi

    So you can Google and cut and paste (kinda).

    Can you understand what’s being discussed?

    Because your link and quote would demonstrate that you don’t.

  • Shawny1

    It’s not climate science. It’s the settled “science” of manufactured crisis.

  • falstaff77

    AR5 most likely sea level rise by 2100 is 0.6 ft to 2 ft.
    Chap 13: Sea Level Change. AR5 does not give “worst case”, but “high” side scenarios.

  • JeffS

    Nice try at deflection, but no points will be awarded for your feigned obtuseness.

    The point is what Unix-Jedi says: CO2 isn’t the problem. Carbon isn’t the problem. We actually don’t know if we have a problem.

    And I’ll add this: the so-called scientists pushing this “theory” are either clueless or scam artists.

    And if you genuinely believe that CO2 is the problem, then you are an ignorant tool. And a fool.

  • JeffS

    You’re using facts, U-J. Warmenistas like Alessandra are impervious to them — they detract from their religion.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    The tactic of wedging your opponents depends on differentiating them into bad actors and misguided good guys we want to pull over onto our side. You’ve identified the bad actor part just fine. Sweeping them all into that category makes the other side stronger.

    Not good.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    Regulating it is a much easier job than predicting it because it’s an engineering task that is not particularly hard in concept. It’s just shading to reduce sun or mirroring to capture extra sun. The mechanics is known. It’s just the price tag is currently off the charts. Over the next 50 years I expect the price tag to shrink by several orders of magnitude.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    The point is what Unix-Jedi says: CO2 isn’t the problem. Carbon isn’t
    the problem. We actually DON’T know if we have a problem.
    ============

    I thought you knew it all – at least enough to know what is the problem including if there is a problem.

    I guess you just don’t know then. So, between you and the people you say also don’t know, it seems you are all in the same boat!!

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    No, it’s like this: there are many people simply destroying the environment, and air and water pollution have reached horrendous levels around the globe. So, between the people who are concerned about the problem of pollution, and who want more controls, and the people who are happy to pollute the Earth until it is unlivable, one is more favorable to the side that is pushing for more pollution controls, even without spending all our free time reading about every subject related to pollution around the globe.
    Historically, it’s always been criminal people intent on polluting the environment without consequences that have lied about pollution problems (soil, air, water, etc.). Therefore, the ball is on your court to prove you’re not just another version of the same.

  • NeoWayland

    There is a difference.

    One side wants massive funding and phenomenal government power to fight the problem which they can’t prove exists.

    All other things being equal (which they are not), the side pushing for power is the side I distrust.

  • NeoWayland

    Speaking as someone who does have an Earth-centered religion, one thing that makes me angriest at the climate change alarmists is that they insist all other problems like pollution, water shortages, and cookie-cutter mass produced architecture must take back seat to dealing with climate change.

  • NeoWayland

    One of the best things that anyone can do to “fight CO2″ is planting a few trees.

    Growing a garden on your balcony or in your backyard works too.

  • http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com Unix-Jedi

    Exactly.

  • http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com Unix-Jedi

    I thought you knew it all – at least enough to know what is the problem including if there is a problem.

    If that question is that unanswerable – and it is – then doing anything other than trivial efforts to change the answer is utterly insane.

  • http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com Unix-Jedi

    Therefore, the ball is on your court to prove you’re not just another version of the same.

    Hey, that works – for anything!

    Anti #FreeKate – PROVE YOU’RE NOT A FILTHY POLLUTER!!!!

    Oh, you can’t? SHADDUP!

    …. Yes, that’s the argument you just made. If someone can’t prove to your (admittedly ignorant) satisfaction that they’re not part of a large strawman generality, then they’re guilty and dismissable.

    Which works for *any argument you want*. Which is to say, it’s a logical fallacy.