The harder the Alarmists try ...

[Sunny and Warm]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

CBS News – New York Times Poll shows the public has mostly given up on global warming and the environment

Posted on September 17, 2011 by Anthony Watts Got some vikes, AB, and a nap for my ear infection, decided to check email, found a link to this poll so figured I’d better pass it on. I was surprised.

Here’s question 88:

88. Which statement comes closest to your view about global warming? 1. Global warming is caused mostly by human activity such as burning fossil fuels or 2. Global warming is caused mostly by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. or 3. Global warming does not exist.

And here’s the results:

12 percent don’t think global warming exists. 42 percent say it’s man-made and 33 percent say it’s natural. 7 percent say it is a mixture of both, and 6 percent are in the “I dunno” or didn’t answer category. With only 42 percent saying it is human caused, that puts it in the minority view.

But what I think is even more telling is the fact that it didn’t even show up on the radar in question 3, which asks:

I’m sure “global warming” was in there somewhere, perhaps in the 14 percent of “other” responses seen near the end, but even with Al Gore’s recent media event to try to bring it to the forefront again, it appears to have had zero effect. Also telling: “Environment” gets less than 1 percent.

It’s jobs and economy which get the lions share of concern, which just goes to show that if people are poor, out of work, and hungry, they don’t have time to worry about elitist causes like Al Gore’s global warming crusade.

The poll with all questions is here: http://s3.documentcl...oll-results.pdf

The NYT news story on it is here: http://www.nytimes.c...eived.html?_r=1

[ORH_wxman]

Who cares?

Its obvious Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was a ton of bunk so the worry of ignorant people has fallen now that its been more documented. But honestly, most of it is because the economy and such has tanked. People are more concerned about short term stuff rather than something that is a theoretical larger problem in 100 years.

[WinterWxLuvr]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

CBS News – New York Times Poll shows the public has mostly given up on global warming and the environment

Posted on September 17, 2011 by Anthony Watts Got some vikes, AB, and a nap for my ear infection, decided to check email, found a link to this poll so figured I’d better pass it on. I was surprised.

Here’s question 88:

88. Which statement comes closest to your view about global warming? 1. Global warming is caused mostly by human activity such as burning fossil fuels or 2. Global warming is caused mostly by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. or 3. Global warming does not exist.

And here’s the results:

12 percent don’t think global warming exists. 42 percent say it’s man-made and 33 percent say it’s natural. 7 percent say it is a mixture of both, and 6 percent are in the “I dunno” or didn’t answer category. With only 42 percent saying it is human caused, that puts it in the minority view.

But what I think is even more telling is the fact that it didn’t even show up on the radar in question 3, which asks:

I’m sure “global warming” was in there somewhere, perhaps in the 14 percent of “other” responses seen near the end, but even with Al Gore’s recent media event to try to bring it to the forefront again, it appears to have had zero effect. Also telling: “Environment” gets less than 1 percent.

It’s jobs and economy which get the lions share of concern, which just goes to show that if people are poor, out of work, and hungry, they don’t have time to worry about elitist causes like Al Gore’s global warming crusade.

The poll with all questions is here: http://s3.documentcl...oll-results.pdf

The NYT news story on it is here: http://www.nytimes.c...eived.html?_r=1

How should global warming be one of the most important issues facing this country? We already have, and have had for all of history, devestating drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms, etc. Unless you live right by the sea, or you are a polar bear, I don't think you are going to be devestated by the avg temps rising a few degrees. There will be changes, there will be losers, but there will also be winners. As a friend of mine says, what's wrong with a warmer climate? He's not a fan of winter.

If I made a list of 100 things that concern me, global warming would not make the list.

Change happens. Might as well get used to that concept.

[Sunny and Warm]

Who cares?

Its obvious Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was a ton of bunk so the worry of ignorant people has fallen now that its been more documented. But honestly, most of it is because the economy and such has tanked. People are more concerned about short term stuff rather than something that is a theoretical larger problem in 100 years.

What's ironic is that people on this and other forums are so passionate for and against AGW when in reality it doesn't matter a hill of beans except to sway politicians. As long as apathy for the AGW cause continues, it will be difficult for the Dems to pass any legislation and/or regulations regarding this. For that I am thankful.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Who cares?

Its obvious Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was a ton of bunk so the worry of ignorant people has fallen now that its been more documented. But honestly, most of it is because the economy and such has tanked. People are more concerned about short term stuff rather than something that is a theoretical larger problem in 100 years.

Wonder how long it will take Frivolous to wreck this thread too?

[weatherweather]

Why are some people so against global warming? There's no question the earth has warmed over the last few decades, the only thing up for debate is how much if any is man made. I dont understand why some people plant their feet so firmly that its absolutely not man made.

[Sunny and Warm]

Why are some people so against global warming? There's no question the earth has warmed over the last few decades, the only thing up for debate is how much if any is man made. I dont understand why some people plant their feet so firmly that its absolutely not man made.

Well to answer your first question, only 12% don't believe global warming exists. 88% belief in anything is pretty high. Hell, probably no more than that believe that we landed on the moon. As to your second premise, a fair amount of people, including me, impart some of the seen warming to man in varying degrees. However, I believe the sun, and its multitude of unknown feedback mechanisms, is the greatest cause of global warming. It is no coincidence that the sun was at a peak of activity during the same time that CO2 increased and that temps increased. My simple question is why can't the sun have caused higher OHC, which in turn caused BOTH off gassing of CO2 from the oceans and higher temps?? A simple coincidence. I find the scientific papers and more importantly the scientists and their cadre flawed to the point of being akin to the tree falling in the forest. I feel this poll in a sense indicates this by the level of apathy that increases with the stridency of the AGW true believers.

[skierinvermont]

Well to answer your first question, only 12% don't believe global warming exists. 88% belief in anything is pretty high. Hell, probably no more than that believe that we landed on the moon. As to your second premise, a fair amount of people, including me, impart some of the seen warming to man in varying degrees. However, I believe the sun, and its multitude of unknown feedback mechanisms, is the greatest cause of global warming. It is no coincidence that the sun was at a peak of activity during the same time that CO2 increased and that temps increased. My simple question is why can't the sun have caused higher OHC, which in turn caused BOTH off gassing of CO2 from the oceans and higher temps?? A simple coincidence. I find the scientific papers and more importantly the scientists and their cadre flawed to the point of being akin to the tree falling in the forest. I feel this poll in a sense indicates this by the level of apathy that increases with the stridency of the AGW true believers.

So your theory is that the oceans of outgassed CO2? This is your theory of what has happened? And the scientists have conveniently ignored this possibility? Really???

You obviously have zero desire to learn.

Your suggestion is disproved by even the most cursory understanding of climate science.

The oceans are a NET SINK of CO2. They have not "out-gassed." The oceans are dramatically more acidic today because they contain much more CO2. Personally, I would be alarmed and ashamed of myself if I were so completely off-base with my conjecturing. Perhaps it is time to really try to educate yourself in a constructive manner by reading the actual science instead of WUWT and other blogs. Then you wouldn't make such inexcusable errors. Were you drunk when you wrote this post? High? There simply is no excuse for making up such blatantly wrong pet theories.

The energy imbalance of the atmosphere is directly and empirically and theoretically attributable to CO2, not the sun. The atmosphere has become more opaque to outgoing LW radiation specifically in the CO2 absorption spectrum. This is directly measurable and fits century old theory.

[Hailstoned]

So, there's a man running for president from the hellhole of Texas who's a skeptic of climate change, 1,500 of whose constituents are newly homeless due to the state's worst drought and resulting wildfires in recorded history. Meanwhile, places like Montana and Vermont half drowned this summer, as a tornado grooved out a 39 mile clearcut through the hilly towns of central Massachusetts. Sure. Climate business as usual. Politicians are expected to clueless about this stuff. But weather people?! Sorry, Al Gore was right, and continues to be vindicated every day, no matter how hard the deniers huff and puff. Murdoch and company have truly had their way with too many here.

[Sunny and Warm]

So, there's a man running for president from the hellhole of Texas who's a skeptic of climate change, 1,500 of whose constituents are newly homeless due to the state's worst drought and resulting wildfires in recorded history. Meanwhile, places like Montana and Vermont half drowned this summer, as a tornado grooved out a 39 mile clearcut through the hilly towns of central Massachusetts. Sure. Climate business as usual. Politicians are expected to clueless about this stuff. But weather people?! Sorry, Al Gore was right, and continues to be vindicated every day, no matter how hard the deniers huff and puff. Murdoch and company have truly had their way with too many here.

I agree. Vermont and Montana have never had floods, and droughts in TX have never been experienced. Tornados are specific weather phenomena. I'm surprised Skierinvermont and Weatherusty didn't skewer you for that one. Oh that's right, you are an alarmist like them. You're going to fit right in here with the doom and gloom crowd.

[roardog]

I agree. Vermont and Montana have never had floods, and droughts in TX have never been experienced. Tornados are specific weather phenomena. I'm surprised Skierinvermont and Weatherusty didn't skewer you for that one. Oh that's right, you are an alarmist like them. You're going to fit right in here with the doom and gloom crowd.

Most people are "dumb" when it comes to weather. It's not hard to convince these people that one particular natural disaster is caused by global warming. It's also not hard to convince these same people that the global warming theory is false after one snowy winter.

[skierinvermont]

I agree. Vermont and Montana have never had floods, and droughts in TX have never been experienced. Tornados are specific weather phenomena. I'm surprised Skierinvermont and Weatherusty didn't skewer you for that one. Oh that's right, you are an alarmist like them. You're going to fit right in here with the doom and gloom crowd.

Actually I don't really buy into the whole weather has gotten more severe stuff. I mean it probably has in some regards, slightly, but it is difficult to prove. I think the increase in severe events is often greatly exaggerated.

I didn't really believe his post warranted a response. He's clearly not a very informed poster. I like how you chose to criticize the noobie though instead of responding to my post above it and acknowledging your rather revealing error.

[PhillipS]

Well to answer your first question, only 12% don't believe global warming exists. 88% belief in anything is pretty high. Hell, probably no more than that believe that we landed on the moon. As to your second premise, a fair amount of people, including me, impart some of the seen warming to man in varying degrees. However, I believe the sun, and its multitude of unknown feedback mechanisms, is the greatest cause of global warming. It is no coincidence that the sun was at a peak of activity during the same time that CO2 increased and that temps increased. My simple question is why can't the sun have caused higher OHC, which in turn caused BOTH off gassing of CO2 from the oceans and higher temps?? A simple coincidence. I find the scientific papers and more importantly the scientists and their cadre flawed to the point of being akin to the tree falling in the forest. I feel this poll in a sense indicates this by the level of apathy that increases with the stridency of the AGW true believers.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. An 88% consensus of people on the street is significant, but a 97% consensus of scientists working in climate related fields that the observed global warming trend since the 1800s is largely man-made and is very serious is not significant? Wow! That's an interesting double standard.

As for your belief that the Sun is a major cause of global warming - well, that's been examined and rejected by a number of research projects. Skeptical Science has a good discussion on this and links to the relevant research. But then, you don't believe any research that doesn't align with your beliefs, do you? For those with open minds, here's a plot of global temperatures and the Sun's activities:

Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

And are you really asserting a "multitude of unknown feedback mechanisms"? The obvious logical fallacy is, of course, is if they are truly inknown then how do you know that there is a multitude? For that matter, how do you know that there are any unknown feedback mechanisms? Claiming that we know nothing because we don't know everything is another logical fallacy. I will freely admit that we still have a lot to learn about climate feedback processes. But what we know today does a good job of explaining the data we've observed. Do you seriously believe that next week, or next month, scientists will discover these alleged "unknown feedback mechanisms" and they will completely overturn all we know about climatology? Basing your beliefs on "unknowns", whether they be Leprechauns or Unicorns, is superstition, not science.

[PhillipS]

I agree. Vermont and Montana have never had floods, and droughts in TX have never been experienced. Tornados are specific weather phenomena. I'm surprised Skierinvermont and Weatherusty didn't skewer you for that one. Oh that's right, you are an alarmist like them. You're going to fit right in here with the doom and gloom crowd.

So the only weather you'll accept as evidence of AGW is weather that has never been recorded in the past? That any possible weather ever seen is just 'same old, same old' and not even possibly attributable to AGW?

And I assume, since sea levels have been higher in the past, and the poles have been warmer in the past, that they can't be used to confirm AGW either?

Well, I guess that settles the debate. Thank you, now all of us Alarmists can relax and have a beer.

[The_Global_Warmer]

CBS News – New York Times Poll shows the public has mostly given up on global warming and the environment

Posted on September 17, 2011 by Anthony Watts Got some vikes, AB, and a nap for my ear infection, decided to check email, found a link to this poll so figured I’d better pass it on. I was surprised.

So Watts admits his judgement is impaired. No wonder he can post these things on his blog and use it as reason AGW is not happening or to help his side. He admits he is loaded running his blog.

Would anyone here employee someone coming to work popping opiates and guzzling them down with alcohol?

[Sunny and Warm]

Actually I don't really buy into the whole weather has gotten more severe stuff. I mean it probably has in some regards, slightly, but it is difficult to prove. I think the increase in severe events is often greatly exaggerated.

I didn't really believe his post warranted a response. He's clearly not a very informed poster. I like how you chose to criticize the noobie though instead of responding to my post above it and acknowledging your rather revealing error.

actually don't have time until later to respond to your lack of understanding. You'll have to wait. I don't sit by my computer and dwell on AGW incessantly like you.

[Sunny and Warm]

So Watts admits his judgement is impaired. No wonder he can post these things on his blog and use it as reason AGW is not happening or to help his side. He admits he is loaded running his blog.

Would anyone here employee someone coming to work popping opiates and guzzling them down with alcohol?

well, if it was you, NO. Watts is a different story, and since he owns the blog and is under medication for his infection, I'll give him a big pass. Still trying to figure out why you even wasted time on a post about that.

[valkhorn]

well, if it was you, NO. Watts is a different story, and since he owns the blog and is under medication for his infection, I'll give him a big pass. Still trying to figure out why you even wasted time on a post about that.

Two huge problems with your thread are:

1. Public opinion doesn't decide what is or isn't a scientific consensus. The consensus that the Earth is getting warmer and that Man is playing some part is pretty solid, as is the evidence. Again, what is unknown is the degree to which man is playing a role, but it is significant. That isn't alarmist to say that, and if you don't like what science has to say about it, get your degrees and publish some science to go against it. At least BethesdaWX is going into college to do eventual research on weather.
2. It's ridiculous and hypocritical to claim that 'alarmists' won't listen to the other side or are biased when you are posting stuff from biased sources. It's the same argument conservatives use against the supposed 'liberal media' when they listen to Fox News all day. Two wrongs don't make a right. Watts has been shown repeatedly that he skews and distorts data. His conclusions have been shown wrong by many people, and yet people still go to his website simply because they want to hear some things and they don't really care about what the evidence says. It seems to me that in your heart of hearts you don't want to even consider the possibility that you are wrong, and therefore you aren't intellectually honest.

(As a side thought, someone should post a poll to see if those that agree with and do not agree with AGW would actually change their minds if they were shown contrary evidence, and what contrary evidence they would consider)

[valkhorn]

So Watts admits his judgement is impaired. No wonder he can post these things on his blog and use it as reason AGW is not happening or to help his side. He admits he is loaded running his blog.

Would anyone here employee someone coming to work popping opiates and guzzling them down with alcohol?

My big beef with Watts (and others like him) is why use a blog? Why not spend your time publishing real scientific stuff?

It's the same with the Intelligent Design movement. They won't publish anything to be peer-reviewed, spend millions writing blogs, and when asked why they won't publish anything for peer-review they lie, and list popular press books and unrelated articles as what they've done. The only thing is there has been no Kitzmiller vs. Dover regarding the AGW subject.

Instead of wasting time with the public, they ought to be doing real science because that's how science gets done. You don't write a bunch of blogs, pull a few political strings, then demand teachers 'teach the controversy' when there really is none among scientists.

[The_Global_Warmer]

well, if it was you, NO. Watts is a different story, and since he owns the blog and is under medication for his infection, I'll give him a big pass. Still trying to figure out why you even wasted time on a post about that.

So he takes synthetic heroine while drinking alcohol. Do you realize outside of the irresponsibility for him to post he got "vikes" which is slang, which likely means "vikes" are a normal part of his regimen. He is what 50, 60? And he is putting booze in his body while high on opiates. yeah he owns his own blog and is telling everyone how he gets loaded. Come on man. If Al Gore wrote that on his blog if he was doing what Watts does he would get destroyed.

[The_Global_Warmer]

My big beef with Watts (and others like him) is why use a blog? Why not spend your time publishing real scientific stuff?

It's the same with the Intelligent Design movement. They won't publish anything to be peer-reviewed, spend millions writing blogs, and when asked why they won't publish anything for peer-review they lie, and list popular press books and unrelated articles as what they've done. The only thing is there has been no Kitzmiller vs. Dover regarding the AGW subject.

Instead of wasting time with the public, they ought to be doing real science because that's how science gets done. You don't write a bunch of blogs, pull a few political strings, then demand teachers 'teach the controversy' when there really is none among scientists.

What qualifications do you have to have to write a paper for peer review?

Not to rip Bethesda but if he wrote a paper on his thoughts that the sea ice is going to be at mid 90s levels by 2025 and 1970s levels by 2040. Would it get accepted? I mean how would he come up with evidence when there is none? But even if there is none for that scenario does every paper get accepted? How does it work? Thanks.

[skierinvermont]

actually don't have time until later to respond to your lack of understanding. You'll have to wait. I don't sit by my computer and dwell on AGW incessantly like you.

I can't wait! Please enlighten me! How exactly are the oceans causing atmospheric CO2 to rise when they are actually gaining CO2?

[Sunny and Warm]

So your theory is that the oceans of outgassed CO2? This is your theory of what has happened? And the scientists have conveniently ignored this possibility? Really???

You obviously have zero desire to learn.

Your suggestion is disproved by even the most cursory understanding of climate science.

The oceans are a NET SINK of CO2. They have not "out-gassed." The oceans are dramatically more acidic today because they contain much more CO2. Personally, I would be alarmed and ashamed of myself if I were so completely off-base with my conjecturing. Perhaps it is time to really try to educate yourself in a constructive manner by reading the actual science instead of WUWT and other blogs. Then you wouldn't make such inexcusable errors. Were you drunk when you wrote this post? High? There simply is no excuse for making up such blatantly wrong pet theories.

The energy imbalance of the atmosphere is directly and empirically and theoretically attributable to CO2, not the sun. The atmosphere has become more opaque to outgoing LW radiation specifically in the CO2 absorption spectrum. This is directly measurable and fits century old theory.

for your reading enjoyment. Try to keep up next time.

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-flux.htm

http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/other_papers/gbcpaper_revised.pdf

The Colorado State paper says:

Enhanced CO2 outgassing in the Southern Ocean from a positive

phase of the Southern Annular Mode

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/18/co2-and-ocean-uptake-maybe-slowing/

Appears to be some circles that clearly see CO sequestration and offgassing as a result of ocean temps. Rather than be an alarmist, try to be a realist.

[Sunny and Warm]

I can't wait! Please enlighten me! How exactly are the oceans causing atmospheric CO2 to rise when they are actually gaining CO2?

I just enlightened you, but I doubt you'll get the picture. You are so caught up in your fantasy you'll never learn until the glaciers are at your door.

[skierinvermont]

for your reading enjoyment. Try to keep up next time.

http://www.greenworl...ic/CO2-flux.htm

http://www.atmos.col...per_revised.pdf

The Colorado State paper says:

Enhanced CO2 outgassing in the Southern Ocean from a positive

phase of the Southern Annular Mode

http://wattsupwithth...-maybe-slowing/

Appears to be some circles that clearly see CO sequestration and offgassing as a result of ocean temps. Rather than be an alarmist, try to be a realist.

LOL I cannot believe you actually tried to defend that outgassing is leading to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. Wow. Simply too amazed to respond at this point.. give me a few minutes.

[Sunny and Warm]

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. An 88% consensus of people on the street is significant, but a 97% consensus of scientists working in climate related fields that the observed global warming trend since the 1800s is largely man-made and is very serious is not significant? Wow! That's an interesting double standard.

As for your belief that the Sun is a major cause of global warming - well, that's been examined and rejected by a number of research projects. Skeptical Science has a good discussion on this and links to the relevant research. But then, you don't believe any research that doesn't align with your beliefs, do you? For those with open minds, here's a plot of global temperatures and the Sun's activities:

Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

And are you really asserting a "multitude of unknown feedback mechanisms"? The obvious logical fallacy is, of course, is if they are truly inknown then how do you know that there is a multitude? For that matter, how do you know that there are any unknown feedback mechanisms? Claiming that we know nothing because we don't know everything is another logical fallacy. I will freely admit that we still have a lot to learn about climate feedback processes. But what we know today does a good job of explaining the data we've observed. Do you seriously believe that next week, or next month, scientists will discover these alleged "unknown feedback mechanisms" and they will completely overturn all we know about climatology? Basing your beliefs on "unknowns", whether they be Leprechauns or Unicorns, is superstition, not science.

Hopefully someone sent you a PM pointing out that the 97% number is bunk. Stop embarrassing yourself.

And then you go on to show the standard TSI chart, as if anyone on either side believes that's the whole solar story. We are in 2011 fyi.

[Sunny and Warm]

LOL I cannot believe you actually tried to defend that outgassing is leading to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. Wow. Simply too amazed to respond at this point.. give me a few minutes.

I'll give you all the time in the world to come up with a BS story. Here's another tidbit for you:

The Carbon Cycle The primary source of carbon/CO2 is outgassing from the Earth's interior at midocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs. Much of the CO2 released at subduction zones is derived from the metamorphism of carbonate rocks subducting with the ocean crust. Much of the overall outgassing CO2, expecially as midocean ridges and hotpot volcanoes, was stored in the mantle when the Earth formed. Some of the outgassed carbon remains as CO2 in the atmosphere, some is dissolved in the oceans, some carbon is held as biomass in living or dead and decaying organisms, and some is bound in carbonate rocks. Carbon is removed into long term storage by burial of sedimentary strata, especially coal and black shales that store organic carbon from undecayed biomass and carbonate rocks like limestone (calcium carbonate).

[skierinvermont]

this is really sad.

[Sunny and Warm]

So the only weather you'll accept as evidence of AGW is weather that has never been recorded in the past? That any possible weather ever seen is just 'same old, same old' and not even possibly attributable to AGW?

And I assume, since sea levels have been higher in the past, and the poles have been warmer in the past, that they can't be used to confirm AGW either?

Well, I guess that settles the debate. Thank you, now all of us Alarmists can relax and have a beer.

weather is weather, and not climate. Eventually over many years, all that weather data becomes climate for a particular location. I dare say that everything you have seen in your lifetime has happened before and probably then some. The world didn't start in 1970.

[Sunny and Warm]

this is really sad.

You asked for papers that show correlation between temps and CO2 regarding oceans. I gave you some examples, and even a paper from Columbia University showing the most of the CO2 produced annually comes from Earth, and not humans. Are you saying you have nothing in return? Are you further saying that we know everything that we need to know about ocean ridge venting? Try to open your mind a little rather than be a follower.