Bishop Hill What's a sceptic?
Oct 21, 2012 Climate: Sceptics The Register reports that sceptics are losing ground in the USA:
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 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.
The problem with these kinds of survey is that they tend to be put together by people who don't really understand what the argument is about. That the world got a little warmer at the end of the twentieth century is a proposition that seems to me to be on fairly firm ground. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that mankind has effectively contributed to that warming again seems pretty solid.
Most people on the sceptic side of the argument are questioning how much warmer we might expect to get, whether it's a problem, and just how far the IPCC and the community of climatologists have hyped the issue, fiddled the figures and hidden the extent of their ignorance. The false argument presented in the media does, however, serve the green movement very well.
Reader Comments (45)
It would be interesting to ask the question of the climate researchers that if a paragraph in support of AGW was not included in your paper, do you think that it would still be published?
anthony had this:
9 Oct: WUWT: Now, alarmists are making the public believe in the extreme weather boogeyman
A new survey has been released by Yale in cooperation with George Mason University. In it, 74% surveyed say “global warming is affecting weather in the United States”...
“Americans have just experienced two years of record-setting extreme weather events, and are increasingly connecting extreme weather in the United States to global warming,” said Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/now-alarmists-are-making-the-public-believe-in-the-extreme-weather-boogeyman/
i post some stuff in the comments, incl:
March 2012: Yale: Global warming’s Six Americas in march 2012 and november 2011
Certainty of the Belief about the Reality of Global Warming – Figure 2
Nearly 100 percent of the Alarmed understand that global warming is happening (97%), and 57 percent of the group are extremely certain…
Q) How much do you trust or distrust the following as a source of information about global warming?
Your local public health department
Your primary care doctor…
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Six-Americas-March-2012.pdf
ABC Australia: I Can Change Your Mind About…Climate
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: Anthony Leiserowitz
Leiserowitz: And then comes last but not least the group we call the dismissive and this is about 10% of the public and these are people who are firmly convinced it’s not happening, it’s not human caused, it’s not a risk at all and in fact many of them, a majority of them are what we lovingly call conspiracy theorists, these are people who say it’s a hoax, it’s scientists making up data, it’s a UN plot to take away American sovereignty and so on…
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/webextras/anthonyleiserowitz_transcript.pdf
an evasive Leiserowitz response in the ABC above interview:
"Nick (Minchin, fmr Liberal Senator): Can I just ask was your survey, the results you’ve just given us was that a properly conducted opinion poll by telephone or door knocking? Was it weighted for, you know, to get a proper demographic sample, how big was the sample, when was it conducted?
Anthony (Leiserowitz): Yeah, great question. So we always conduct our surveys with at least 1,000 people, nationally representative, this is the highest scientific quality of what we do, we can’t get published if we don’t have high quality data. So, yes.
Nick: Do you outsource that to a Gallop(sic) or something or you do it -
Anthony: I’m sorry?
Nick: Do you outsource that to a professional polling company to do it for you?
Anthony: Yes, we do…"
i wasn't able to find any proof Yale/George Mason outsource to anyone, and all their past work suggests political and CAGW bias.
It would be exceedingly surprising if any such grandly titled organisations as the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication were to publish results showing that fewer people believed in the reality of CAGW, no?
They would rather be cutting the ground from under their feet – to say nothing of endangering their funding.
bish,
perhaps the writer's recent piece, in which you were mentioned, came out while u had your break:
6 Oct 2012: Register: Rik Myslewski:US trounces UK in climate scepticism jibber-jabber
Surprise! Conservative opinion pieces less balanced than liberal ones
The survey results are discussed in an article [1] presented in IOPscience [2]'s Environmental Research Letters [3] entitled "Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10" by UK researchers James Painter and Teresa Ashe, of the Universities of Oxford and London, respectively...
The pair define "climate scepticism" and "climate denial" as "discourse [that] challenges the views of mainstream climate scientists and environmental policy advocates, contending that parts, or all, of the scientific treatment and political interpretation of climate change are unreliable."
As examples of this discourse, Painter and Ashe cite mathemetician and mining consultant Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit [4] and meteorologist Anthony Watts' Watts Up With That? [5] websites, along with three books by UK authors: accountant Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion [6], journalist Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster [7], and former energy secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson's An Appeal to Reason [8]. They also note the seminal climate-scepticism book by the American reporter Ross Gelbspan, The Heat Is On [9]...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/06/climate_change_articles_survey/print.html
a couple of other headlines by the writer at the Register:
- Last month ties for WARMEST September on RECORD
'Is it hot in here, baby, or it just you?'
- Climate change linked to EXTREME weather surge
The Pope will say today, souls can mostly be saved by people becoming Catholics.
It's just another meaningless web-based survey. This is how the survey was conducted.
"Appendix II: Survey Method
The data in this report are based on a nationally representative survey of 1,061 American adults,
aged 18 and older, conducted from August 31 – September 12, 2012. All questionnaires were self administered by respondents in a web-based environment. The survey took, on average, about 25
minutes to complete.
The sample was drawn from Knowledge Networks’s KnowledgePanel®, an online panel of members
drawn using probability sampling methods."
KnowledgePanel is a group of people across the country which have been randomly invited to fill out surveys once per week. If you agree to participate it appears some sort of survey will be sent to you fairly regularly.
Looking at the first question in this survey they subtly prime you for places to inform yourself about the context of the survey when they start by saying: "Recently, you may have noticed that global warming has been getting some attention in the news."
The survey was taken the first two weeks of September. Since there was a constant drumbeat in the US press about heat and drought during the summer the increase in belief found is unsurprising.
further to the Rik Myslewski:US trounces UK in climate scepticism jibber-jabber link i posted above, see:
15 Oct: WUWT: The Unknown Skeptic – Journalism, awaiting to be freed
Guest post by Maurizio Morabito
And the report in question is “Poles Apart: The International Reporting of Climate skepticism“ written in 2011 by a team of researchers headed by James Painter for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) and the British Council. It is a truly remarkable effort, with an analysis of almost 5,000 newspaper articles, taken from “ an example of a left-leaning and a right-leaning newspaper” in the UK, the USA, Brazil, China, India and France. It has now been distilled into an academic-style article (J Painter and T Ashe, “Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10”, Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044005) that doesn’t add much to the original report...
Compare that to Andrew Montford’s explanation in “The Climategate Inquiries”, a report for the GWPF published in 2010 evidently unknow to Mr Painter and colleagues:...ETC
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/the-unknown-skeptic-journalism-awaiting-to-be-freed/
And if ticking a box saying you believe meant anything then there would be very little sin and we’d all be thin. There’s a long way between saying and doing. There is no carbon church confessional where you can magically have your CO2 absolved and yet the only thing they ever poll is the dodgy word of self deluded carbon sinners. ‘Oh, when the bible said that adultery was a sin, I didn’t think it included small boys.’
At the moment, few people are associating their CO2 guilt with rising bills and unemployment. The US is quite far behind the UK on this. However governments are beginning to realise that when voters say they are worried about AGW they mean ‘fix that global warming problem but don’t send me the bill… or ask me to do anything… or bother me with it again. Bored NOW!’ AGW is the ultimate in pass the parcel politics. Any government in power now, will almost certainly be pensioned off before any global warming effects might be felt but the cost of mitigation falls in this parliament and the next and the next.
For the UK government and people, 2015/16 will begin the real eye opener. The first power cut we have will be a slap in the face to everyone. Whining about the importance of cutting CO2 and how free and clean wind power is, will be no protection from an angry power cut mob. Office twits might think a power cut is quite exciting, especially as they can still run their battery powered gizmos but they’ll soon get nasty when they discover the lift doesn’t work and the expresso machine won’t dispense coffee while they wait for the lights to come back on. When they’ve spent a few cold nights sleeping on the office floor because they find that the underground and the trains run on electricity and the windmills can’t be made to run just because it’s rush hour, they won’t give a toss about Tuvalu, Shishmaref or a single bloody polar bear. Now there’s a political pass the parcel they’ve been juggling for just under 10 years and the last wrapping comes off during the next government tenure. Non of the three main parties will be able to say ‘the other side did it’ but it will be the party in power that discovers the striking similarity between public belief in AGW and not actually giving a damn about AGW.
The Register seems happy to allow their reporters personal opinions, including contradictory ones.
Rik Myslewski is consistently an alarmist, while Lewis Page is a global warming sceptic, and very good on science and aerospace (though with a strange antipathy towards Apple .. can't win them all):
http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Lewis%20Page
And yet despite this claim the two people how you think would have their fingers on the public's 'interest pulse ' the most ,becasue they need to show how much they to 'care ' , seem to have nothing to say about 'the cause ' as the elections come nearer ever day .
So whose wrong , those with agenda to support 'the cause ' , for without they themselves are gone , or the politicians which despite you might think of my are actual far better at reading the public mood than you think ?
OK folks outside the US: Monday is Debate Day Must Win for Obama. All sorts of articles are being pushed by the media to help Obama in this final debate on foreign policy. Any bets on whether global wamring, in whatever term de jour is used, will pop up.
Mostly this may be used for "most Americans" believe as the President believes, etc., etc.
Oh,and remember the Ambassador was killed by using the Mohammed video to string him up.
Enojy the debate Monday!
A majority of Americans now believe in global warming (I paraphrase the Register)
Hmm....It's that word: 'Believe'...Here is a way to test it:
Imagine, in March 1912, the White Star Line carried out a survey into ship safety. A huge majority of the respondents believed that the Titanic was unsinkable. In May that year, a follow-up survey was cancelled...
Two points here.
1) I'm not at all convinced the survey was robust enough to be truly independent and representative of a cross section of the American Public.
2) Given the $billions spent to promulgate the AGW paradigm, it is not at all surprising that some folk are being taken in.
Any article which describes the Anderegg et al. article in PNAS as a "comprehensive, arguably even-handed survey on AGW agreement among scientists" loses my vote of confidence immediately.
Notice how they've gone back to the term "global warming" again. Quite unusual these days.
Oct 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM | David, UK
Remember it was a hot summer in the US. They don't have much of an attention span these alarmists.
We've had one-sided media coverage here for the past few years to the point that storms and droughts are generally believed to be caused by global warming and hottest-ever claims with no caveats are routinely reported from increasingly urbanized stations (e.g. Reagan National Airport in Virginia). Dissent is relatively effectively suppressed (e.g. weather forecasters are attacked when they stray into CAGW skepticism).
Mostly the narrative is that global warming is an abstract crisis with easy solutions that can be solved by a progressive government. The building where I work now has an excess of prime spaces for "green" cars and "free" charging stations for electric cars. Everyone who goes by gets another dose of how noble and easy it is to fight global warming by simply spending more money (including tax money) on capturing a bit of energy from a car's brakes that would otherwise be turned into heat. Or spending a lot more money (and a lot of tax money) getting barely 40 miles of driving range from a 435 pound lithium battery.
Global warming taps into some underlying neurosis. I know several people who are constantly unplugging chargers which use a few milliwatts of standby power or fretting over the length of a hot shower. It is an easy thing to worry about in an age where worries are hard to come by.
how exciting:
21 Oct: WUWT: Update and confirmation of ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago’ aka ‘the pause’
This time Dr. Judith Curry weighs in. In an email to me earlier this week she revealed that she has been quite busy with this rebuttal (to warmists) and assisting the Mail with this update to the story that appeared last week. Bottom line, the Met Office rebutal was more in agreement than not and Dr. Curry suggests ‘Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/21/update-and-confirmation-of-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/
final Q&A from the new David Rose/Daily Mail article:
Q Surely we can leave it to our elected representatives to research all the arguments thoroughly and then act accordingly with our taxes?
A Tim Yeo is the chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which advises the Government on energy policy. Lord Deben is chairman of the Government Climate Change Committee, which also gives direct advice on emissions targets.
Both Mr Yeo and Lord Deben have significant personal stakes in the ‘renewable’ energy industry, which benefits to the tune of billions of pounds a year from wind subsidies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
I am a sceptic. I may not be “scientifically-trained”, but was brought up believing that scepticism was essential to progress (all progress having scientific roots); however, it appears that scepticism is to be much-reviled by science, nowadays. That said, the following are a few of the points that I am in complete agreement:
the Earth’s climate is not the only immutable system in the known universe – it has changed in the past, will change in the future, and is changing now;
CO2 is a greenhouse gas – according to NASA, ALL gasses are greenhouse gasses (obviously, some will be more effective than others);
humans have helped to increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere – but then, it is possible that others species have helped, too;
humans can alter local climate – most cities are considered heat-islands – again, so can other species (though, admittedly, on a far smaller scale);
we need to constantly increase and improve our observations in order to increase our knowledge and understanding – not just of the climate, but of everything that we can;
we should be investigating alternative energy production and sources, and alternative life-styles to reduce our usage of the finite resources available; and,
I believe the Moon landings were real.
Where my scepticism kicks in is when told that climate change is solely caused by humans; that the change is catastrophic; that humans can have any significant effect upon the change; that to think otherwise is tantamount to heresy; and, that huge sums of money have to be spent on vast swathes of unsightly, wildlife-hostile, non-biodegradable, inefficient, unreliable energy sources to replace more efficient, more reliable, and more compact energy sources.
I am also suspicious about the absence of wreckage at two of the sites in 2001.
This study is barely more credible than Lewandowski's "study." Confirmation bias is not relegated only to scientists in the field of Climate. Policy analysts and opinion makers are similarly smitten.
If it were true that alarmism has become so popular in the US, then both candidates would grab onto it. But their silence is deafening.
QED.
This particular contributor is why I stopped reading the Register.
We’re going to be seeing a lot more of these campaigns based on “polls”, not least because after the Shakun mauling and a few others like it more recently, it’d take a brave climate scientist to come up with a suitably alarming paper, which was so bullet proof, it couldn’t be torn to pieces in public.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/lies-damn-lies-and-polls/
Pointmam
Instead of these utterly dodgy internet surveys, why don't these people do a proper survey using standard methodologies and practices? True, it is more expensive, but what is the point of wasting a few pennies on a meaningless exercise? It is not as if there aren't millions washing around in the CAGW research funding pool.
The cavalier disregard for rigour in survey methods makes me suspect that the results of a properly conducted study might not provide the 'right' answers.
Just got back from Battle of Ideas at the Barbican.
1st that Barbican that place is a concrete maze and Lifts are a bit temperamental.Rich mans Concrete Jungle.
Went to the Shale Gas Debate.Very interesting.Got a few ideas.
Stephen Bull guy from Statoil Norwegian Oil Gas company said Shale is now so big in America its impacting on profitability of Coal and Nuclear.
Shale has cut US CO2 by half.Hence Americans can now afford to worried about Climate Change .Pass their Guilt onto the rest of the World.
According to Stephen Bull America isnt export its Gas yet But its regigging its LPG terminal in Pennsylvania for export.
Fiona Harvey Environmental Correspondent at the Guardian said America is now Exporting its Surplus Coal to Europe driving up Emissions over here.
Hence my conclusion
If America Fracks its Coal Beds. Exports the Methane Gas .Gas burns Hotter than Coal in European Gas Power Stations .Therefore America has De Carbonized its Coal.
Solved Global Warming.
Jamspid Genius
Fiona Harvey was also on the Panel she said America is now
This survey is by the "Yale Project on Climate Communication" - yet another propaganda group promoting climate activism. Just look up the author Edward Maibach:
(My bold). Is this the kind of guy you trust to run an opinion poll?
The author hails from San Francisco. He should be more concerned about natural environmental phenomena.
"That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that mankind has effectively contributed to that warming again seems pretty solid."
Can't agree with that Bish. Where is your evidence?
""That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that mankind has effectively contributed to that warming again seems pretty solid."
Can't agree with that Bish. Where is your evidence?
Oct 22, 2012 at 12:10 AM | ME
Yet more evidence of cranks on this blog. Look, basic science is wrong. It's easy to see why you were all so desperate to try and discredit Lewandowsky.
And where is the science and where is the evidence?"
Yes. An election must be getting quite close now.
"...support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]" ...could cover much territory.
I can certainly support the tenets that CO2 absorbs at some wavelengths in the Infra-Red, and that some small fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere is there due to human activities, and that its effect on temperature might be more than zero at certain times and in certain locations even if it is too small to reliably measure or predict.
The Reg use to be just about IT but over the last few years has got more shrill with the CAGW, I use to go their but when they promted both Lew's and Gregis paper and I pointed out the failues of both these papers but they did nothing to correct the articles I gave up commenting their, if you check there web site figures they are a failing web site so I wouldn't bother.
Forgive the deja vu, but this is the same fallacious argument of numbers. Therefore, if I go into to any town/village hall in the land, & there are 100 people in it, & I ask for a show of hands of all those who believe in fairies & that they live at the bottom of the garden, & 95 people put their hands up. I then ask the remaining 5 people if they don't believe in fairies, nor that they live at the bottom of the garden, or are just not sure, & they put their hands up, I can safely conclude that fairies do actually exist & that they indeed do live at the bottom of the garden, because 95% said that they did, simples as they say! Don't mean that it is so though, does it?
"Frankly, you're a loser buddy (or buddess)."
Ceetee, very disappointing post. Not Bishophill-like at all.
Surely the problem is that these people haven't spent any time trying to ascertain what sceptics actually believe, consequently they have a straw man sceptic position which is that warming isn't occurring at all, which would indeed would be "denial". The famous Doran paper made the same fundamental mistake posing two questions to which 99% of sceptics would have responded in the affirmative, but managing to get only 97% of climate scientists to do so. Funny old world.
@Geronimo
Is that right, are you normally polite to people who are trying to deceive you?. Frankly, if I am deemed to be "over the top" then let the moderator suppress my posts. I don't particularly care. There are many like me who are sick to death with the lies and deceit of the AGW gang and who feel powerless to express their anger save through blogs like these. On occasion some of us go beyond what you may consider beyond the realms of genteel discourse. I'm sorry if that offended you.
ceetee, no apology is needed, while I appreciate your anger the object of it, in this case, is trying to do just that, make you angry. I am neither annoyed nor angry with you, I just believe we can make our arguments better if we don't get emotional/angry. That doesn't stop us being passionate and at times forthright though.
Leaving aside for a moment the point that it doesn't matter a toss how many ignorant people believe one thing or another, it's the facts that count...
Is it not ironic that large and growing numbers of ignorant Americans are starting to believe in something that even the UK Met Office has finally, very quietly, agreed is not happening just now?
It is hard to believe these two polls. My question is whether or not the pollsters believe them.
============
Oct 21, 2012 at 10:52 PM | Paul Matthews
"Is this the kind of guy you trust to run an opinion poll?"
Well, no: http://sppiblog.org/tag/ed-maibach
In fall 2007, after joining Mason’s Department of Communication, Maibach founded the Center for Climate Change Communication and became its director.
The center is the first behavioral science research center in the United States dedicated solely to improving climate change public engagement methods.
Starting with the community he knew best, Maibach planned his first study, which was conducted in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund, to be a national survey of public health department directors.
The research team was surprised to find that nearly 60 percent of local public health department directors nationwide reported that they were already seeing harmful health effects of climate change in their jurisdictions, yet few felt they had the capacity to respond.
The survey:
Out of 2,296 members of the National Association of County & City Health Officials, they produced a sample size of 217, who were contacted. The responses were:
Take a running jump = 38 .
Refused to answer calls or e-mails = 46
This left 133, of whom 81, (61%), believed their jurisdiction had seen the effects of climate change in the last 20 years.
So the actual figure of 3.5% of 2,296 local public health department directors becomes “nearly sixty percent of local public health department directors nationwide.”
YALE: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/about/
Yale is heavily into AGW and in 2009 appointed Rajendra K. Pachauri to lead the newly established Yale Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI).
Frances Beinecke of Natural Resources Defense Council, (NRDC) co-chairs the Leadership Council of the Yale School of Forestry, is a member of the Yale School of Management's Advisory Board and a former member of the Yale Corporation.
NRDC has a revolving door policy with US government agencies such as EPA. NRDC was founded by Gustav Speth, former UN Development Programme Administrator and former advisor to Carter and Clinton. In 1999 he became the dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He retired as Dean in 2009.
In 2010, Anthony Leiserowitz said “Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction,”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aAZ7gSs0dBSw
Another vindication of Jefferson over Buffon- eventually word must reach
does Russell's comment mean anything to anyone?
- - - - -
diogenes,
He is probably referring to this:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/jefferson-buffon-and-the-moose
John
- - - - - - -
BH,
As written, I have a fundamental disagreement with your statement.
I would completely agree with you if your statement contained some changes by me as follows:
John
Pardon the truncation - the cursor grazed the post tab by mistake.
It would please Memcken as well as Buffon and Jefferson thatsuperannuated cranks and fundamentalist zealots are at last losing their grip on America's conception of what climate science is about.
'Most people on the sceptic side of the argument are questioning if warming could be significant at all, '
The Denialati don't accept that CO2 has any impact on temperatures and as a consequence the world is getting a little cooler.
Marc Morano on Climate Depot thinks that global warming is dead as a political issue. Neither of the presidential candidates has mentioned it.