Posted on 08/13/2014 8:36:13 AM PDT by GulliverSwift
Despite the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by human activity, a new survey conducted for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette demonstrates that many Americans remain uncertain about the impact of climate change and the need for government action to address it.
This is contrary to some polls suggesting wide support for steps to counter the phenomenon. David W. Moore, director of the iMediaEthics survey, said the results suggest that, because of flaws in methodology or wording, some other surveys have overstated the degree of public knowledge on the issue, and the intensity of support for measures to curb carbon emissions. [See Mr. Moore’s essay in today’s Forum section, “Climate Partisans.” The poll report is available here, along with a description of the methodology.]
Mr. Moore argues that while many poll respondents will express an opinion on issues such as global warming, closer scrutiny shows that they do not have strong feelings on it one way or another. One indication of the relative lack of intense, informed views on the issue is the way responses can be influenced by outside factors. As an example, the survey of 1,000 respondents was divided into subsamples with half asked about their support for “federal government” action to regulate greenhouse gases, and the other half asked about the “Obama administration.”
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
It was once scientific consensus that heavier-than-air machines could never fly.
I have no memory of that because I was too busy looking at the Nuclear Destruction Clock that had run all the way down to 2 minutes till Midnight.
Actually, haven’t you heard? When it’s cool it’s now global warming driven climate as well,
The cold winter and cool Summer are blamed on AGW-driven climate events that push cold Canadian air (aka the Polar Vortex) further South than the norm.
Iow the AGW hoaxers have now figured out how to ALWAYS blame AGW for anything other than “normal” weather patterns. But just try to get them to tell you what “normal” is ...
Another twist is that most of the polar ozone is created in lower latitudes and transported there. At the poles it is mostly destroyed (seasonally as you said), but a net loss year round. So the seasonal ozone hole also depends on the strength of the stratospheric circulation.
“PG poll: Scientific consensus on climate change has not permeated the public [lefty whining]” That’s because people are smarter than the “experts” who believe is bunk.
The problem is they are pushing CAGW and pretending it is true by pretending that storms, heat waves, etc are a result of AGW. AGW in a mild form is pretty straightforward consensus science. But CAGW based on models is not. The government wants to hijack science to create te phony CAGW scare but it is very easy to disprove.
How can a flat planet who's sun, other planets and the entire universe revolves around it be plagued with too much carbon?
Scientific CONsensus
Agreed. My point though was the program's assertion that the debate was over - the forcoming ice age was a given, as stated by leading climatologists, the same folks who today agree on global warming.
Maybe because scientific facts do not support the consensus.
There is no such thing as scientific proof. Nothing is proven, even the theory of gravity is not absolutely proven.
But there is consensus on gravity. Science based on top of the theory of gravity exists.
So when we talk about consensus, there are different kinds of consensus. Consensus by a large group that works in the field is one such. Another would be legal consensus so you would need to look at the 3 SCOTUS decisions on CO2 and how that is driving it now. Another would be consensus among the insurance companies and when do they start raising the rates on ocean front property, or make you rebuild on stilts because they will no longer insure the house otherwise.
While nothing is proven to an absolute degree of perfection, laws such as the law of gravity are able to predict results with an extremely high level of accuracy. Drop a rock from the top of a building and that law will tell youhen it will hit the ground. Repeat the experiment many time and you will get results that are almost identical, depending, of course, on the accuracy of the equipment being used. Thus, it is a law of physics with an excellent predictive capability.
The data put forth by the consensus of scientists who are in the global warming camp has shown little or no predictive value.
Particularly not in Pittsburgh where Jim Quinn savaged their ideas on the radio every morning for two decades.
Just curious: Is there a “scientific consensus” that the various schemes to counteract global warming would actually control the planetary climate? Or just be a monumental waste of money with potential for unintended negative consequences?
So far in history, human efforts to impose their will on Nature on any grand scale have not worked out. Will the tide recede on command this time, because we are so smart?
Yeah, but I am making an entirely different point.
The government has lost all credibility with its citizens.
And it is not even aware of it.
That is extremely dangerous
Perhaps it's nitpicking, but there is no such thing as "Scientific Consensus". A theory is either proven via science, or reached via consensus. Never both, as the two are fundamentally at odds with each other.
That’s the headline of the article. You’re not supposed to change it when posting to FR.
You are of course leaving out the most important “greenhouse gas” which is of course not CO2 but water vapor. The theory of anthropogenic global warming is dependent on an increase of CO2 causing an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere as a positive feedback.
The theory goes that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause a small increase in temperature. This small increase in temperature is predicted to cause more water vapor in the atmosphere which will cause a much larger increase in temperature and we will eventually have a run-a-way positive feedback which will cause all sorts of bad things to happen.
Strangely enough despite rising CO2 levels the temperature of our planet has not increased over the past 17 years and in the same time period water vapor in the atmosphere by most measures appears to have decreased.
Despite all of the hype only 15ppm or 3.75% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. Only 15ppm of the 130ppm increase in CO2 or 11.5% of this increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution has been from the burning of fossil fuels.
www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/7273/2014/doi:10.5194/acp-14-7273-2014
look in...Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 7273 - 7290, 2014
Since the end of the little ice age the planet has been in a cyclic but general warming trend which has caused an increase in CO2 mostly from 88.5% from natural sources. As we have known from the very start from numerous studies of ice core samples... warming precedes an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere not the other way around.
The entire theory of anthropogenic global warming is dependent on an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. This means an increase in clouds, humidity and precipitation none of which we are currently seeing. Any actual scientific theory which had been so thoroughly debunked by the data would have been discarded ages ago. Scientific method is suppose to be a means to seek truth and greater understanding of the world around us.
The sound of one hand clapping?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.