"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)
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."
"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.
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)
The Economist explains - What’s the time in Antarctica?
Oct 7th 2013, 23:50 by T.W.
SPAIN is considering putting its clocks back by an hour. The country lies at roughly the same longitude as Britain, but since 1942 has been an hour ahead. (The change was made by Spain’s then-dictator, General Francisco Franco, in a barmy act of solidarity with fascist Germany.) With a few exceptions, countries or regions simply choose a time zone that corresponds with their longitude: those east of Greenwich, in London, are usually ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), whereas those to the west are behind. So where does this leave Antarctica, where all degrees of longitude converge?
Times zones .. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/copyright-and-time-zones .. sometimes have as much to do with politics as geography. Nepal pointedly runs 15 minutes ahead of its neighbour India. Cross the border from Nepal into Tibet and you have to put your watch forward by two-and-a-quarter hours, because China, which really spans five time zones, operates a single time across the land. At the other extreme, Russia has nine contiguous time zones, more than any other country. Until a few years ago it had 11.
The problem of the poles applies just as much to the north as to the south, of course. But no one actually lives at the North Pole, which lies in the shifting ice of the Arctic Ocean. Antarctica, by contrast, is home to a small population of scientists, who need to keep track of time—especially during the non-stop daylight of summer and through winter’s endless night. Different research stations have come up with different solutions. Australia’s six Antarctic bases usually operate according to their longitude, so the Casey station is three hours ahead of the Mawson site, 2,000 miles (a bit more than 3,000 kilometres) down the coast. Other stations, meanwhile, use a time zone that makes it convenient to communicate with their home country. The Vostok base, run by Russia, normally keeps to Moscow time, even though it lies parallel with western Australia. Australian scientists popping over from the Casey station to the Russians’ place (a mere 1,000 miles or so inland) for a warming vodka would need to move their watches back four hours, even though the bases are on the same longitude. As if that were not confusing enough, Antarctic bases sometimes change their time zone halfway through the year. A few years ago Australia moved its stations' clocks forward by as much as three hours to ensure that the bases' residents were awake during the best hours for flying.
Trickier still is the question of what time it is in places where no one goes. In Antarctica, GMT is sometimes used where no other claim is made. Wittgenstein pondered what time it could be on the sun (it was a nonsensical question, he concluded). But it might not be as mad as it sounds. Mars's days (known as sols) are 24 hours and 40 minutes long, which already makes life difficult for researchers operating rovers from Earth, and will also pose difficulties for any future colonists. An online organisation, Lunarclock.org, has developed what it calls Lunar Standard Time, a lunatic system to be used in a future era of extraterrestrial living (“It is pretty clear that the Moon will be colonised sooner or later,” the website reasons). Franco would doubtless have approved, even if Wittgenstein would not.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
