Sunday, August 25, 2013 10:54:46 PM
Are climate deniers an endangered species? (1)
By Doug Craig
August 24, 2013 9:29 PM
I came across this cartoon [ http://www.skepticalscience.com/2013-SkS-Weekly-Digest_33.html ] at Skeptical Science [ http://www.skepticalscience.com/ ] and thought I would throw it on the blog but I am not sure it is really true.
While the scientific consensus grows stronger [ http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus ], the severity of global climate change worsens [ http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate ] and the strength of the deniers' arguments weakens [ http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ], we just aren't seeing any major shift in public perception [ http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4800/weber_2011.pdf ]. So while the deniers have no cards to play, they remain at the table, and continue to win. Actually they don't win anything but they do prevent humanity from altering its self-destructive course.
According to the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication in 2011, only a minority of Americans thought the federal government should make addressing global warming a high priority [ http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf ].
"Previous research [ http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/Global-Warming-National-Seriousness.pdf ] has shown that four key beliefs about climate change--that it is real, human caused, serious and solvable--are important predictors of support for climate policies."
"Other research [ http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/ ] has shown that organized opponents of climate legislation have sought to undermine public support by instilling the belief that there is widespread disagreement among climate scientists about these points--a view shown to be widely held by the public."
And a study in Nature Climate Change [ http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1295.html#ref3 ] found that the public confusion and misperception related to the reality of global climate "is strongly associated with reduced levels of policy support and injunctive beliefs (that is, beliefs that action should be taken to mitigate global warming). The relationship is mediated by the four previously identified key beliefs about climate change, especially people's certainty that global warming is occurring. In short, people who believe that scientists disagree on global warming tend to feel less certain that global warming is occurring, and show less support for climate policy. This suggests the potential importance of correcting the widely held public misperception about lack of scientific agreement on global warming."
In other words, intentionally confusing the public is a very effective technique and ensures that the electorate will be less likely to support efforts to mitigate the severe damages associated with global warming.
A second study replicated the earlier one and suggested [ http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9 ], "that the crucial role of perceived scientific agreement on views of global warming and support for climate policy is robust. Further, we show that political orientation has a significant influence on perceived scientific agreement, global warming beliefs, and support for government action to reduce emissions. Our results suggest the importance of improving public perception of the scientific agreement on global warming, but in ways that do not trigger or aggravate ideological or partisan divisions."
In other words, the truth does not matter if the public does not know the truth. Until we find a way to convince people that climate change is real, is human-caused, is very serious and requires our action, nothing will be done.
Except for the most extreme among us who have be duped into doubting anything that is presented as scientific, most people are open to the notion that there are experts who actually know things they do not. And they are receptive to the notion that these experts can communicate with one another and come to an agreement or consensus on what is true. It does not mean they know everything but it does mean they know some things and it is helpful to the rest of us to know what they know.
However, over twenty years ago, the fossil fuel industry understood that public acceptance of a consensus on climate change would damage their ability to acquire massive profits and so they "managed" public perception related to this issue.
As far back as 1991 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science ], "a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations organization called the 'Information Council on the Environment' (ICE)," which "launched a $500,000 advertising campaign to, in ICE's own words, 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact).'"
Copyright 2013 The E.W. Scripps Co. (emphasis in original)
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/08/are-climate-den.html [no comments yet]
--
Are climate deniers an endangered species? (2)
By Doug Craig
August 24, 2013 10:04 PM
In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, John Cook writes [ http://thebulletin.org/closing-consensus-gap-public-support-climate-policy ], "These strategies (by the fossil fuel industry to confuse the public about climate science) have been effective. To this day, there is a significant 'consensus gap' between public perception and the actual scientific consensus.
"A 2012 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found 43 percent of Americans thought climate scientists were still in disagreement [ http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-15-12%20Global%20Warming%20Release.pdf ] about whether the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity. I have conducted similar research, measuring perceived consensus in the United States and Australia.
"When Americans were asked what percentage of climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, the average answer was 55 percent. When repeating this survey with Australians, I found that my own country doesn't perform much better, with an average answer of 58 percent.
"The misperception of a scientific community in disagreement is in stark contrast with reality. A 2009 study found that 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are significantly changing global temperature [ http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf ]. A 2010 analysis of public statements [ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 ] by climate scientists found the same 97 percent consensus."
In an effort to further study this consensus, Cook "led a citizen science effort, The Consensus Project [ http://www.theconsensusproject.com/ ]" and "analyzed 21 years' worth of climate research, resulting in the most comprehensive analysis yet done [ http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/ ]."
"We identified more than 4,000 peer-reviewed climate papers stating a position in their abstract on whether humans were causing global warming. Among these papers, 97 percent endorsed the consensus. To independently check our results, we asked the scientists who wrote the climate papers to rate their own research. Among papers self-rated by the authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97 percent endorsed the consensus."
"Our research went further than earlier studies and found that the consensus had already formed by the early 1990s. Agreement continued to strengthen over the 21-year period. While our sample was admittedly a small portion of the global climate science community, we nevertheless found more than 10,000 scientists in more than 80 countries publishing climate papers that endorse the consensus.
"Although President Obama tweeted our research to more than 31 million followers on the day after it was published, and later mentioned the 97 percent consensus [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/-we-need-to-act-transcript-of-obama-s-climate-change-speech.html ] in his landmark speech calling for climate action, public perception has not yet caught up with the science.
"Many psychological barriers to climate action remain in place [ http://thebulletin.org/2013/julyaugust/dragons-mules-and-honeybees-barriers-carriers-and-unwitting-enablers-climate-change ], and opponents continue to focus intensely on attacking the scientific consensus--which is indicative of its importance. Closing the consensus gap would remove a significant roadblock that has for two decades inhibited public support for climate action."
Meanwhile, I have D.R. Tucker to thank for sending this my way [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp1OEmntNsM (below, as embedded)]. While we dally and dither and fail to come together to solve our collective crisis, we find the scientists have largely underestimated the severity of the challenge before us. And time is running out.
Copyright 2013 The E.W. Scripps Co. (emphasis in original)
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/08/are-climate-den-1.html [with comments]
--
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=16807573 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61905709 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67192975 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72380337 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73799011 (and preceding and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82329806 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78059638 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64625707 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88621448 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89524585 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89558669 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91380000 and preceding (and any future following)
By Doug Craig
August 24, 2013 9:29 PM
I came across this cartoon [ http://www.skepticalscience.com/2013-SkS-Weekly-Digest_33.html ] at Skeptical Science [ http://www.skepticalscience.com/ ] and thought I would throw it on the blog but I am not sure it is really true.
While the scientific consensus grows stronger [ http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus ], the severity of global climate change worsens [ http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate ] and the strength of the deniers' arguments weakens [ http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ], we just aren't seeing any major shift in public perception [ http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4800/weber_2011.pdf ]. So while the deniers have no cards to play, they remain at the table, and continue to win. Actually they don't win anything but they do prevent humanity from altering its self-destructive course.
According to the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication in 2011, only a minority of Americans thought the federal government should make addressing global warming a high priority [ http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf ].
"Previous research [ http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/Global-Warming-National-Seriousness.pdf ] has shown that four key beliefs about climate change--that it is real, human caused, serious and solvable--are important predictors of support for climate policies."
"Other research [ http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/ ] has shown that organized opponents of climate legislation have sought to undermine public support by instilling the belief that there is widespread disagreement among climate scientists about these points--a view shown to be widely held by the public."
And a study in Nature Climate Change [ http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1295.html#ref3 ] found that the public confusion and misperception related to the reality of global climate "is strongly associated with reduced levels of policy support and injunctive beliefs (that is, beliefs that action should be taken to mitigate global warming). The relationship is mediated by the four previously identified key beliefs about climate change, especially people's certainty that global warming is occurring. In short, people who believe that scientists disagree on global warming tend to feel less certain that global warming is occurring, and show less support for climate policy. This suggests the potential importance of correcting the widely held public misperception about lack of scientific agreement on global warming."
In other words, intentionally confusing the public is a very effective technique and ensures that the electorate will be less likely to support efforts to mitigate the severe damages associated with global warming.
A second study replicated the earlier one and suggested [ http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9 ], "that the crucial role of perceived scientific agreement on views of global warming and support for climate policy is robust. Further, we show that political orientation has a significant influence on perceived scientific agreement, global warming beliefs, and support for government action to reduce emissions. Our results suggest the importance of improving public perception of the scientific agreement on global warming, but in ways that do not trigger or aggravate ideological or partisan divisions."
In other words, the truth does not matter if the public does not know the truth. Until we find a way to convince people that climate change is real, is human-caused, is very serious and requires our action, nothing will be done.
Except for the most extreme among us who have be duped into doubting anything that is presented as scientific, most people are open to the notion that there are experts who actually know things they do not. And they are receptive to the notion that these experts can communicate with one another and come to an agreement or consensus on what is true. It does not mean they know everything but it does mean they know some things and it is helpful to the rest of us to know what they know.
However, over twenty years ago, the fossil fuel industry understood that public acceptance of a consensus on climate change would damage their ability to acquire massive profits and so they "managed" public perception related to this issue.
As far back as 1991 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science ], "a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations organization called the 'Information Council on the Environment' (ICE)," which "launched a $500,000 advertising campaign to, in ICE's own words, 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact).'"
Copyright 2013 The E.W. Scripps Co. (emphasis in original)
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/08/are-climate-den.html [no comments yet]
--
Are climate deniers an endangered species? (2)
By Doug Craig
August 24, 2013 10:04 PM
In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, John Cook writes [ http://thebulletin.org/closing-consensus-gap-public-support-climate-policy ], "These strategies (by the fossil fuel industry to confuse the public about climate science) have been effective. To this day, there is a significant 'consensus gap' between public perception and the actual scientific consensus.
"A 2012 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found 43 percent of Americans thought climate scientists were still in disagreement [ http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-15-12%20Global%20Warming%20Release.pdf ] about whether the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity. I have conducted similar research, measuring perceived consensus in the United States and Australia.
"When Americans were asked what percentage of climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, the average answer was 55 percent. When repeating this survey with Australians, I found that my own country doesn't perform much better, with an average answer of 58 percent.
"The misperception of a scientific community in disagreement is in stark contrast with reality. A 2009 study found that 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are significantly changing global temperature [ http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf ]. A 2010 analysis of public statements [ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 ] by climate scientists found the same 97 percent consensus."
In an effort to further study this consensus, Cook "led a citizen science effort, The Consensus Project [ http://www.theconsensusproject.com/ ]" and "analyzed 21 years' worth of climate research, resulting in the most comprehensive analysis yet done [ http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/ ]."
"We identified more than 4,000 peer-reviewed climate papers stating a position in their abstract on whether humans were causing global warming. Among these papers, 97 percent endorsed the consensus. To independently check our results, we asked the scientists who wrote the climate papers to rate their own research. Among papers self-rated by the authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97 percent endorsed the consensus."
"Our research went further than earlier studies and found that the consensus had already formed by the early 1990s. Agreement continued to strengthen over the 21-year period. While our sample was admittedly a small portion of the global climate science community, we nevertheless found more than 10,000 scientists in more than 80 countries publishing climate papers that endorse the consensus.
"Although President Obama tweeted our research to more than 31 million followers on the day after it was published, and later mentioned the 97 percent consensus [ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/-we-need-to-act-transcript-of-obama-s-climate-change-speech.html ] in his landmark speech calling for climate action, public perception has not yet caught up with the science.
"Many psychological barriers to climate action remain in place [ http://thebulletin.org/2013/julyaugust/dragons-mules-and-honeybees-barriers-carriers-and-unwitting-enablers-climate-change ], and opponents continue to focus intensely on attacking the scientific consensus--which is indicative of its importance. Closing the consensus gap would remove a significant roadblock that has for two decades inhibited public support for climate action."
Meanwhile, I have D.R. Tucker to thank for sending this my way [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp1OEmntNsM (below, as embedded)]. While we dally and dither and fail to come together to solve our collective crisis, we find the scientists have largely underestimated the severity of the challenge before us. And time is running out.
Copyright 2013 The E.W. Scripps Co. (emphasis in original)
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/08/are-climate-den-1.html [with comments]
--
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=16807573 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61905709 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67192975 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72380337 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73799011 (and preceding and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82329806 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78059638 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64625707 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88621448 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89524585 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89558669 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91380000 and preceding (and any future following)
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
