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.
Yeah. Translation: Not enough people are believing the BS these guys are shoveling. Grant money is at stake!
Definition of a conundrum: Prognazis control the schools, controlling the education received by most Americans. Prognazis control the AGW scam, and now say Americans are too stupid to understand AGW. What to do?
Maybe the Prognazis should give the schools back to Americans so they can become educated enough to believe in the Prognazi con.
There is no god but Gaia, and Algore is her prophet
“The Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication”
The very fact that universities have projects and centers dedicated to climate change communication says that somebody is really spending too much money on this.
And it isn’t “big oil.”
And the only good oil is coconut oil. No not the stuff banned by the Nanny staters in movie theaters, but the stuff used by massage professionals in Portland to “release the second chakra.”
Except for the extent Occidental Oil helped out the Gore family.
HI RSM. IF THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE GRANT MONEY DISBURSED FOR ANY CLIMATE RESEARCH!
Well, there is all that fraud and misrepresentation and data manipulation and the cover ups.
And so some Americans are stupid enough to think those discredit the whole thing. But really, just because they lie all the time doesn’t mean you shouldn’t believe them!
[…] Scientists Decide Americans Are Too Stupid to Understand Global Warming : The Other McCain. […]
Unfortunately for the “consensus” of Scientists Who Are Getting “Climate Change” Grant Money, there are more and more skeptics with impeccable scientific credentials. Most of these still believe there is a warming trend but admit the evidence doesn’t support the alarmist views at all.
Real science is only “settled” when a theory can be verified by either direct observation in nature or duplication under controlled experimental conditions. The only thing “settled” about climate change is that some scientists really loooove getting public subsidies and firmly believe they should continue unabated.
I think the American public is smart enough to see that the people who benefit from global warming are the governments who want to control the citizens, the UN who wants to have global ” power” in the redistribution of wealth via the cap and trade process,, and the folks who hope to run the equivalent of the stock markets except they hoped to make billions of dollars trading cap and trade credits.
Listen, I can put a stop to all this AGW scamming with one statement…It’s called friggin’ weather, man. Sometimes it’s hot and sometimes it’s cold. Sometimes it rains or snows, sometimes it doesn’t
So simple, even a caveman can understand it.
“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, so it looks like we’ll have to open the Global Warming Re-education Correctional Facilities soon” said Maibach.
There. Fixed it for ol’ Maibach.
… or send deniers to the Global Warming Gulags.
alternately, Scientists do not understand Finance. If they did they’d appreciate a problem that is twice as hard to deal with when you have 400 times the resources is actually a much smaller problem.
[…] And in the case of climate change, the Warm Mongers at The Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication say that it’s because Americans are too stupid to understand the complexities of the science involved according to a report by the Heartland Institute. (H/T, Stacy McCain). […]
They are losing the argument so they declare people to dumb to understand. Isn’t that the teenager argument principle?
[…] Stacy McCain quotes from James M. Taylor at the Heartland Institute, who notes: […]
If you teach him long enough, you might be able to get a caveman to understand the difference between weather and climate.
“If you really look into it, governments are funding most of the global warming studies.”
if you look into it, governments fund most of all basic scientific research.
“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.
Article: “Once there is an Official Scientific Consensus, only stupid Americans remain skeptical.”
Dr. Mailbach did not say Americans are stupid. Mr. McCain is putting words in Dr. Mailbach’s mouth.
Perhaps your browser didn’t capture the formatting properly. What you quote is pretty clearly an editorial comment, not an asserted quotation of Dr. Mailbach.
I think you’re fundamentally right, though you’re tremendously simplifying the problem. The big unanswered question is how much lead time is needed to adjust climate and reconfigure temperature trends to something sustainable?
Global Warming is both science, economics, and politics. We see warmed over socialists peddling failed solutions that are now necessary in the face of this global warming emergency. The scientists are allowing themselves to be associated with these greenwashed reds and so their credibility takes a hit. Obviously they’re too stupid to not be taken in by the big government con so how trustworthy can their science be? The scientists besmirch themselves by associating with the children of lysenkoism.
By the time they could have any chance of positive impact on the climate, the Sun will already be at Red Giant phase.
Most likely scenario is they try something dangerously stupid (like screwing with volcanoes) and wreck the atmosphere.
No, the big question is IF we need to adjust the climate, not when, at least in the relatively near term of the next few thousand years. A brief hundred years or so, when not much would have changed in terms of climate, we will have a much better, and more high resolution understanding of where we are in terms of climate cycles than we have today.
A hundred years will see an global economy somewhere between a hundred and thousands of times larger. As for when we have to do something? Probably closer to a thousand years, if at all, a period where both technology and raw economic power should increase hundreds of thousands of times over.
My general inclination is that it’ll be much easier, cheaper, and more reasonable, not to mention far, far safer, to adapt ourselves to a changing world, rather than adapt the world to a static us. Both life itself and economics live in the world of adaptation to a non-static world. It is not within our power to make the world pause, our only task is to keep moving ourselves.
But not an AGW fanatic. A warm day is proof, a cold day is “only” weather. A scientific hypothesis is falsifiable, religious dogma is not.
“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.
Those are the words Dr. Maibach put in his own mouth. Yup, no possible way to read them as criticism of Americans’ mental acuity.
Not true. Roughly two-thirds of all scientific research is privately funded.
Tell that to all the caveman warmists who claimed Katrina and extreme weather (hot, cold, or storms) are evidence of AGW.
When every condition is a confirmation of your belief, it’s religion, not science, Chomsky.
Basic research?
The bigger question is what is the point of those who are putting out less greenhouse gas reducing their output marginally while the major producers keep increasing their output without restriction?
With the smokestacks humming in China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc., do you really expect your Prius to make a difference?
You are on the right track. The fact is that environmental stewardship is directly proportional to wealth and wealth creation. Richer nations spend more, poorer nations spend little.
So, lacking certain answers on the problems or solutions, the sound course is to maximize economic growth. Then, whenever we find out the actual verifiable truth, we will have more wealth with which to address it.
The “climate scientists” are looking after their own financial interests. A decade before Kyoto, where there were any climate scientists, they were poorly paid and had a lounge with a cardtable and a ten year old ten cup Mr Coffee machine. Now they get millions in government grants to “study the problem,” which of course dries up the minute they admit they can’t really find a problem, much less any practical way to solve it.
I don’t follow this issue much, except for headlines and such, so I am not that well informed. But CO2 emissions are a problem for the world. And if the GW (global warming – if you didn’t catch it) people bring more awareness to the problem and push for more controls and reduction, that’s a good thing.
But CO2 emissions are a problem for the world.
No, they’re not.
people bring more awareness to the problem
There’s not a problem to be aware of.
And we for sure don’t need “more controls”.
Most likely scenario is they try something dangerously stupid (like screwing with volcanoes) and wreck the atmosphere.
Current thinking is to seed the ocean and start massive algae blooms.
To, yannow, save the oceans they’ll destroy them or some such.
Yeah, that darned CO2 is a real problem. Being, you know, plant food and all that.
And I *hate* plants!
That’s true — but most of the basic research is aimed at truth whereas most of the global warming studies are like the IRS and Benghazi investigations — the end result is predetermined.
Scientifically speaking,”Climate” is what you feel in your home, office or car. That’s why they invented air conditioners and heaters.
Yeah, that darned CO2 is a real problem. Being, you know, plant food and all that. And how Oxygen is made, Oxygen being a byproduct or “waste” from the plants and trees. TFIFY
If “CO2 emissions are a problem for the world”, should people stop breathing?
Because, y’know, that’s what you, me, and every living land-based animal exhales. CO2. Carbon dioxide.
I phrase it thusly because it boggles my mind that one of the most common elements on this tired old planet (i.e., carbon), a key component in what makes up life as we know it, is considered by some people as an effin’ pollutant. So much that they claim that we need “more controls and reduction”, i.e., Big Government in our face, telling us that our very existence is a problem..
Yeah, I know, you didn’t say our existence is a problem. But you certainly implied it, as does the entire warmenista crowd; indeed, many of those watermelons go beyond merely implying it.
But I am tired of being considered too stupid and foolish to make my own opinion, and have an intense hatred of the warmenistas for pushing their environmentally disguised communist agenda onto western civilization. Which you have just supported.
Shame on you for believing them.
It’s amazing that Alessandra ignores the teensy weensy fact that she’s an “CO2 emission source” as well, isn’t it?
Isn’t is just the height of arrogance (and a whole lot more dangerous a prospect then global warming) to think ourselves remotely capable of changing or controlling nature even if this wasn’t a manufactured threat? I kinda followed this until the predicted global cooling ice age didn’t arrive and they desperately clung to cow flatulence as some sort of impending catastrophe. Think George had it right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
Global Warmy fans unnerstan real sofisticatid science stuff but not grammer.
If the global warming scammers had the brains God gave krill, they’d be ditching global warming for asteroid prevention. Hell, at least Russia just got hit by one of those…
The easiest way to solve CO2 emissions is for every living thing on earth to stop breathing.
After you.
Redistribution of wealth on a global scale using the only thing all nations have in common.
First, is this a good thing?
Second, is all climate research “basic?”
Third, how does Lysenko feel about it?
The backup plan is U.N. Agenda 21. Genocide is so much less expensive than re-education for those not inclined to go along with the plan.