Skip to content

Readers Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?

February 25, 2011

My solution to this dilemma, was proposed in “Forget Politics, Think Economics,” which stated

Forget global warming, forget melting ice, forget rising seas, and forget smog-blanketed cities. But don’t forget that the USA spends about $1 million per minute on foreign oil, $64 million per hour and more than $52 billion a year for Persian Gulf imports alone to feed its addiction for foreign oil. Don’t forget we are paying for both sides of the war by helping to finance the enemy, while at the same time bearing the tremendous cost of the war to support their petro-oligarchs. Don’t forget that we are a debtor nation that is losing its financial, technical and manufacturing prowess.  It’s about us, humanity and our future, that we keep our dollars in the USA by getting off petroleum and utilize clean, abundant, and domestically-produced energy sources.  Only through these actions can we ensure our children’s children will have any measure of opportunity, which is rapidly drifting away.

Barry Stevens
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

Ten years of research by NEETF and Roper Research says it all – ecological illiteracy. Most people want to be green, they just don’t know it means you have to get down and jump with the frog, not just sing the song. Kidding aside – environmental information does not lead to knowledge. It’s not mainstream in our schools, most people, the public, our governments, and business are environmentally illiterate. And too often we act out of good heart not good science. But its up to those of us who really believe that breathing clean air is important to learn, to share and to act to get clean air. Jump into the pond, kiss the frog and have fun while doing it – the water is not that cold and it’s not too deep.

Posted by Lynn Johannson
—————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

I think we’re going to find, with climate change and everything else.. things like global warming and goodness knows what else and the cost of fuel for a start.. that things are going to become very complicated.

‘Prince Charles’. We should start by changing peoples attitudes toward this.That should be the first step…according to me

Posted by atieno ohenga
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Because that idiot Al Gore is running around like chicken little screaming ” the sky is falling, the sky is falling”? Americans realize it is a serious problem, but it gets a little less important when you have no job, can’t pay your bills and realize that when you do go back to work, it will be until the day you die and the government will take half of what you make in taxes.

Maybe global destruction doesn’t sound near as bad as it used to.

Posted by Jeff Hill
———–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

This is silly.

 The article asks “Why don’t American Believe in Global Warming” and posits psychological, economic, political and even metaphysical reasons for this disbelief.

Why don’t they just talk about the science?

Without a public discussion and understanding of the factual basis for global warming, those claims will fail to be taken seriously in the court of public opinion.

This is as it should be…

Posted by Chuck Black
————-
Chuck,

Simple answer! There are a vast number of people in the U.S. who take anecdotal, unproven and word of mouth information as gospel rather than that which is generated through wisdom and knowledge. Sure science can be flawed, but that is the purpose of science, i.e., to formulate hypothesis and conduct the necessary program to confirm, refute and advance our understanding of the world and the universe. There are people who are still convinced we never step foot on the moon. Nevertheless, the same people rely on science every day. They just pick and choose what they want to hear and believe. 

Barry
—————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

First, that is not the entire picture. Many Americans do. The problem is that having built up an economy built on fossil fuel, any future that requires change is too horrible to think about for many people.

Posted by Patrick Opitz
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Perhaps they have all read Professor Bob Carter’s book—“Climate—The Counter Consensus”

Posted by Ian Harris
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Great point, Jeff. We are having our priorities chosen for us by people who have enriched themselves by exploiting the topic. BTW, “one-third, 33%, “see it as a Very Serious problem.” You can fool some of the people all of the time…

Posted by Tom Banisch
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Barry, you know I’m on the same page with you. I’m sorry the climate change issue ever arose, because there will always be disagreements as to the relative contributions to that change from human activities. It is far too complicated a topic for the public and arguments can be tailored to confuse, exaggerate and delay meaningful action. We need at least one of the following to get us seriously moving down the right track – a true clean energy technological breakthrough, preferably in energy storage, a large sustained jump in fossil fuel prices or an obvious decline in fossil fuel supplies.

Posted by Greg Hawk
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Could be several reasons….

In the UK, selling and buy carbon credits is a complete Scam. It’s also big business. But making 1/3 of the transfer of each credit (as some companies do) in cash – does not reduce carbon pollution one bit.. just transfers.. OCCASIONALLY – it matters..

Can you EVEN explain what Global Warming is – in a simple fashion? or where it impacts first? Virtually no one can… so of COURSE people are skeptical.. when they see the “carbon credits trading” proposals – it’s all about making cash on the transfers… not reducing carbon emissions….

If you also follow the history of “Global Warming” back to the analytical origins of “Nuclear Winter” – you can see that a large community of people accepted the numbers – even though based on Fraud and Bad Environmental Models. So that makes people skeptical as wePosted by Jerry Robinson
————–
Jerry,

Your right, there is a conspiracy to save the earth and future generations. Must say the same for those inhabitants of Pompeii that did not flee since the rumblings were only the Gods playing games with humans.

Barry
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

It is not OK Barry to be misleading. Your question is wrong. You can say; Why don’t

all Americans believe in global warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Here is the Author’s first statements.

FIRST of all, I apologise for the slightly inflammatory headline of this post. The fact is that a majority of Americans (58%) do think climate change is a serious problem, according to the January 2011 Rasmussen Energy Update, and fully one-third, 33%, “see it as a Very Serious problem.”

My suggestion is that education may be a factor or Skeptical views on science.

Posted by Sidney Clouston
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

A Hot Time Down Under: Do Austrailians believe in Global Warming?

BBC News – Panda cools off with shower in Australia heat

Dec 31, 2010 … One panda finds a way of cooling off, as some parts of Australia experience their hottest New Year’s Eve in a century.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12097956

Posted by Sidney Clouston
———-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

It’s hard to present verifiable evidence in threads like this. My comment that the existence of Global Warning is undeniable can be verified with hard science and observations. However, attributing it to human activity or fixing it with environmental controls is still arguable. It has to be since it is unverifiable prediction from sparse or no data. The degree of uncertainty is a discriminator. Is the cost of extreme measures worth the uncertain benefits? There is also no doubt that these measures would help — how much and at what cost is the question.

Posted by David Finkleman
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Maybe Richard.

But don’t just tell us what you believe or think or have faith in.

Reference something actual that we can verify or test or independently validate.The true intersection of science and policy doesn’t belong along the line of “belief” unaccompanied by corroborating facts.

If you think that it does, then you’re no better than all those students receiving “A’s” and “B’s” who therefore think that they’re learning something.

Posted by Chuck Black
———–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

The country’s with the greatest belief in Global Warning, I believe, are countries that used the oil crises in the 70s to raise taxes on oil-powered portion of their economies. The USA Government did not do this and is now caught in a bind–a bind that might just get tighter as the Middle East transitions over the next few years. Some us in the USA appear to believe that if we can’t see it or feel it, it doesn’t exist. In many ways this lack of belief in Global Warming in the USA has parallels to the education of our young people, even though all measures show a steady decline in the knowledge that our students demonstrate compared to other countries, we just put our collective heads in the sand. If our students “As” and “Bs”, then they must learning something.

In many ways its like our situation in the education of our young people

Posted by Richard Wagaman
————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

There are other sites here that have the kind of people who are selective on what they read and are blind to what they do not want to read.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Posted by Sidney Clouston
————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Mmmm…

Barry tells me that “there are a vast number of people in the U.S. who take anecdotal, unproven and word of mouth information as gospel rather than that which is generated through wisdom and knowledge.”

Is this anecdotal, unproven and word of mouth information that I’m also supposed to take as gospel?

David tells me that “one cannot deny” the global warming trend and “scientifically it is at least arguable that it is not part of the natural cycle” which would seem reasonable to me if he backed up that statement with some facts that couldn’t be denied (or even with some facts that could be debated or argued on their objective merit).

Then David tells us that controlling emissions “can’t hurt” but likely won’t make much difference, except financially, possibly… or maybe not… but who knows for sure…

Now I’m getting a little confused…

Richard tells me it’s all about the EPA and bad laws driven by impatient lawyers but he at least mentions a real example (ozone holes).

Unfortunately, Richard confuses the idea of a specific scientific theory being wrong with the broader concept of “the best science sometimes being wrong” which is an exact quote from his last statement.

My understanding is that the various theories relating to the ozone hole creation and growth drew tentative conclusions that needed to be validated or refuted as part of the process of peer review.

In this case, these specific theories were refuted because their predictions didn’t match the collected data but the concept of “science” certainly wasn’t refuted since the best science does indeed sometimes prove things wrong.

 In this case, science seems to have done pretty well and remained true to its core concepts.

In conclusion, perhaps the “people” are smarter than we think and are ignoring the arguments, both for and against global warming, for much the same reason that I’m making fun of Richard, David and Barry.

Posted by Chuck Black
————-

LinkedIn Groups

Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)

Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

They know global warming is a real condition but they have a belief that letting everything go to pot will enrich them despite all the damage to the infrastructure

and the dead panda.

Posted by Neil Farbstein
———-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Hmm. some reasons immediately come to mind:

– Evidence of conspiracy to defraud the public (e.g. recent email leaks) erode leaders’ credibility;

– Scientists themselves appear strongly divided on the topic;

– All the predictions to date have been, well, not just wrong, but way off base (e.g. we’ll see many more hurricanes, colder winters);

– Realization that for the US to undertake necessary constraints, while rest of the world goes about it’s own business, is not economically beneficial;

– That the predominant catch-phrase was changed from Global Cooling to ‘climate change.’ Everyone’s smart enough to know the climate will change whether we’re the excuse or not;

– The reason for the catch-phrase change is that we’ve been seeing a global -cooling- trend.

Right or wrong, these are many of the current ‘debatable items’ in front of the public. Being substantially unaddressed by experts or leadership, which seems mostly self-serving, does not serve to move the debate forward.

Oh, and to Jeff’s point, Al’s obvious largesse in the midst of all this is a counter punch to his own arguments.

Posted by J. T. Pedersen
—————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Jeff,

Don’t forget as soon as Al Gore cashed his check for the movie where he said the oceans were going to raise 30 feet in the next decade he paid $3M for a condo just feet from the Pacific ocean in San Francisco.

Posted by Steve Yeater
———-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

In the USA, I believe that it goes back to the founding of EPA. At EPA’s beginning, there was a push to let the science drive the environmental laws. The lawyers got restless and passed laws that were not based on solid scientific evidence. Some of these laws were later proven incorrect. This lack of science-based law making helped create the current residence to Global Warming. The economy certainly had an impact on this situation, but these flawed laws in the beginning certainly helped get us into this mess.

On the other hand, a good example of the best science sometimes being wrong is the ozone holes starting at earth’s poles. In the early 1990s, scientists predicted that these holes would continue to grow causing an increase in skin cancer throughout the world. In about 1996, these ozone holes began to close. Nay sayers use this as an example of Global warming and other people-related environmental changes as being hog wash.

In the USA, I believe that it goes back to the formulization of EPA. At the beginning of EPA, there was a push to let the science drive the environmental laws. The lawyers got restless and passed laws that were not based on solid scientific evedence. Some of these laws were later proven incorrect. This lack of science law making helped create the current residence to Global Warming. The economy certainly had an impact on this situation, but these flawed laws in the beginning certainly helped get us into this mess.

On the other hand, a good example of the best science sometimes being wrong is the ozone holes starting at earth’s poles. In the early 1990s, scientists predicted that these holes would continue to grow causing an increase in skin cancer throughout the world. In about 1996, these ozone holes began to close. Nay sayers use this as an example of Global warming and other people-related environmental changes as being hog wash.

Posted by Richard Wagaman
———–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

One cannot deny the global warming trend. Believing that it is happening is not the issue. Attribution is the issue. Scientifically it is at least arguable that it is not part of the natural cycle, most of which has a period longer than humans have been around. Definitely, controlling emissions, etc. can’t hurt environmentally , but it is arguable that it will make much difference. However, it will make a difference economically, which I believe is the principal motivation for resistance. Diesel fuel should cost less than gasoline but it costs more because of environmental concerns. This increases the cost of almost all goods. Is it worth it? I don’t know.

Posted by David Finkleman
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

In my opinion, American are too lazy too learn about global warming, the destruction of our environment and the increasing number of cases and death from community associated MRSA (antibiotic resistant staph infections). Researchers predict that in 2 to 3 years all bacterial infections will be antibiotic resistant. MRSA is a direct result of a contaminated environment.

Posted by Cynthia Mittelsteadt
———
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

Green? Climate Change? Global Warming? CO2 a pollutant? Sacrifice?

Americans will not embrace any of these without an economic benefit. If it saves money and makes America stronger, then Americans are good with this concept. But let’s start with Dick Cheney (yes, politics) who said that “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.” Well, we know where that got us. Embracing sacrifice for the good of the spotted salamander or some out-of-sight, out-of-mind island nation? Not happening! Americans don’t want to be told by their government or for that matter anyone with a college degree that they must sacrifice, that they must abandon their Hummers, pick-up trucks, Chevy Suburbans and speed-boats for the sake of saving the planet. America is about freedom. The 2010 voting season was a referendum on this very issue that Americans will not take any guff from the government.

Now with the Republican Party ready at the switch to use their budget hatchet one the EPA’s of much needed funding, the future of cutting greenhouse gasses may be viewed as bleak.

I specialize in helping customers communicate that going green doesn’t mean freezing in the dark and that conservation is not a word of sacrifice; it’s a word of higher efficiency, productivity and adding & stabilizing employment by making companies stronger competitors.

Using the economic improvement angle is what works. If energy efficiency means a fast ROI, then customers “get it.” I also believe that human factors are figuring into the ebb and flow of our worldwide climate. But it’s really all about the famous Cuba Gooding Jr. line in Jerry Maguire… you show them the money…and they’ll embrace the green.

Posted by Gary Markowitz
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

I have been striving for 30 years to generate more scientific information that can be used to generate a stronger scientific base and a better connection between humans and the environmental decline. Two things appear to be constants: (1) the USA doesn’t want to accept data from other countries, and (2) the funding for the required scientific research is just not there in the USA alone. I have seen verifiable evidence from other countries and the powers in Washington simply do not recognize the evidence. I believe that our situation is more political than scientific sorry to say.

Posted by Richard Wagaman
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Most don’t see it in their back yard therefore, out of sight-out of mind. My area, I don’t see any changes over last 20 years, winters and summers were worst back in my 1950’s days. What the H—L, Dec 21 next year, we won’t have to worry HAHAHAH

Posted by Gary Ogden
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

It’s easy to present verifiable evidence in threads like this. That’s what links and url’s are for.

Posted by Chuck Black
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Clean Energy Community
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Basically because they know they live a lifestyle that implies passing on the energy and contamination bill to others, and they do not want to lose that.

Posted by Al Costa
———–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

Fair comment in the article about American oil dependence. One can usefully reflect on where the Afghan Taliban get their sat phones (they use the Iridium system as I recall – hmmm who built that I wonder) and their money. Admittedly some money comes from drug cultivation, a propertion comes from … the Gulf States. The Gulf States get their revenues from oil & gas which the USA (& Euros & Chinese) buys. Indirectly, the US public (and to be fair the Euros and Chinese as well) is financing attacks on US soliders (and Brits etc etc). Interesting situation.

Posted by Mike Parr
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

For starters, I believe it would serve the cause best if the terminology CLIMATE CHANGE be used rather than “Global Warming”. Let’s keep it simple and straight forward.

Now, in my humble opinion, let me stick my neck out and volunteer my thoughts on this. For those who deny that climate change is a very real problem that our planet is facing I would venture that it ultimately mainly comes down to just politics. (I’ll exclude the very religious sector that appear to be quite convinced that higher powers control everything and will save us all so why bother ourselves with science… Fortunately I would like to believe this is not a significant number of individuals.) I sense that the rest of the 42% unconcerned Americans (assuming the figure of 58% stated above are in the “concerned” category) are mainly conservative individuals whom I perceive are apt to believe that anything to do with climate change is nothing but a liberal agenda. Regrettably, and very apparently, no matter what, they will just not independently allow themselves to look to the scientific research nor even draw their own conclusions from just reading and watching what is going on around the world.

There have been some particularly high profile personalities that served this country and that have championed the consequences of ignoring climate change and we know how they have, and are still, mercilessly bashed.

PS: Oh, and if it ‘aint the politics I forgot to mention that certain corporations appear to be recklessly determined to not allow anything to get in the way of earning that all mighty dollar so they apparently have little incentive to treat the environment with respect and concern! It is indeed a very sad state of affairs.

Posted by Bryan Law
———-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

This is silly.

The article asks “Why don’t American Believe in Global Warming” and posits psychological, economic, political and even metaphysical reasons for this disbelief.

Why don’t they just talk about the science?

Without a public discussion and understanding of the factual basis for global warming, those claims will fail to be taken seriously in the court of public opinion.

This is as it should be…

Posted by Chuck Black
————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Richard, you just said you’ve “been striving for 30 years to generate more scientific information that can be used to generate a stronger scientific base and a better connection between humans and the environmental decline.”

Why don’t you tell me about the science? Why is it so hard to confirm?

I don’t care about anything else, especially your belief that the USA won’t accept data from outside the US or your perceptions about funding gaps.

Posted by Chuck Black
—————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

There are other sites here that have the kind of people who are selective on what they read and are blind to what they do not want to read.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Posted by Sidney Clouston
———–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

I could stand for a good Conspiracy that actually did more than talk and pontificate.

Posted by Jerry Robinson
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Barry:

I don’t see how the residents of Pompei wandered into the discussion… but I would have to say that Volcanic emissions have a profound effect on the climate – perhaps on the Global Cooling side??

I do have a problem with the large group of people who (a) rightly get concerned about the effects of both pollution and genuine global climate change – (b) then embrace every crackpot utterance that speaks to the anti technology lobby side of global warming..

It’s just a sad fact that a lot of “financial” types are more interesting in the cash flow aspects of carbon trading than in actually reducing carbon emissions. It confuses the genuine need to take actions to reduce emissions, reduce fossil fuels consumption, and make a safer environment.

The case of Dr. William Gray speaks to the dark side of a lot of environmental science and academic research.

Talking about saving the future generations… Well.. it’s going to be a massive problem as fresh water shortages increase and the energy to desalinate water and produce fertilizers goes up in price.

Posted by Jerry Robinson
—————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

yes…

which one??

Volcanoes support global cooling –

financial types are more interested in the cash flow aspect and profitability of carbon trading…

Dr. Gray getting prejudicial treatment

or Pompei Residents wondering into any discussion??

so…. yes.. I can support… just pick a topic…

Posted by Jerry Robinson
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Al Gore only got involved decades after the increase in global temperature was already being registered on the data. He might be part of this in the US, but most of the rest of us aren’t taking a politician’s word as fact.

This is not evidence that is benefiting the scientists that are gathering it, as if all climate scientists only got into the fields to invent Climate change. Humans just aren’t that organised.

Science is not divided on whether there is global warming, the vast majority are in agreement that it happening, only the vocal few that are paid to say so.

The evidence is growing…the increase in severity of extreme weather, the rise in average sea levels that are already forcing out some island based communities that have existed for thousands of years, and the movement of previous unknown species in to new areas of the world as temperature change.

We are seeing colder winters, more hurricanes, etc. Its in the news…latest…extreme flooding in several countries around the world, very hard snows in the US. I don’t really mind through, as i don’t live in any of the effected countries. It’s just something that’s happening, and is an increase in trend over the last 30 years. It’s not this year vs last year.

Some areas have cooled, due to increased fluctuations in the weather, but the vast majority have gotten warmer. So this has provided anyone who wants to deny it with a bit of ammo, but when compared to the whole picture, these are a pitifully small part of the whole effect. Its like saying firing a gun pushes things backward, which it does for the whole, but the effect that’s important is most likely the bullet firing out of the barrel.

So good luck with patting yourselves on the back about there being no climate change, and hope nobody here’s lives in New Orleans.

Posted by Bruce Tutty
—————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

The only thing that touches humans in the same universal way as the environment is money and the core driver of the problem is economic in its nature.

When 15th century Italian accountants invest the double-entry book-keeping system, they changed not only the way people did think about business activity but the way they could think. The outcome of activity was no longer in the hands of the Gods but could now be quantified and various activities compared against each other to see which was most “worthwhile”. So powerful and complete was the concept that we still rely upon it today to drive how we account for our economic activity. Unfortunately, the world was a very different place then: we had not discovered any meaningful use for fossil fuels, there were many fewer people on the planet and the world view the inventors was no doubt heavily influenced by Catholic doctrine, complete with man’s dominion over other life forms. Little wonder, then, that the idea that there might be a cost associated with using the Earth’s resources and services never occurred to them.

Had our numbers remained at the few hundred million they were, we might have got away with that assumption but with a planet of 7 going on 9 billion, it is clear that it is no longer fit for purpose. Failing to cost the use of natural resources and services has turned Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” into an “Invisible Wrecking Ball”.

The REDD scheme included in the Cancun Agreement is a first step to recognising that there is economic value in natural services. At last it may be more “worthwhile” to leave a forest standing than chop it down. It is a small step, but an important one in beginning to correct a potentially fatal accounting error. We now need to pursue the extension of the principle to how we account for all of our economic activity.

Posted by Harold Forbes
————–
Harold,

Elegant in words and encompassing in structure!

Cannot detract from your thoughts, but can add the posture of the government. Leaders are filled with ballot box anxiety and lack the leadership, vision and courage to manifest real changes in the public and private sectors.

Barry
————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

I support efforts that are based on fact as opposed to emotion. It’s possible to eliminate the use of toxins (chemical fertilizers), decrease irrigation water usage by 50%, and clean our waterways/ground water. That’s fact.

The global warming group (formerly the global cooling group in most cases) has little if any scientific evidence to support their claims. You will note…in almost every case their solution is a totalitarian governmental control group…the most inefficient form of governance ever invented.

How about this? Let’s work on inventing green, energy efficient, passive devices that make economic sense? Then…people would buy them because they don’t cost multiples of the inefficient technologies.

Naaa…What we really need is some global control group that knows absolutely nothing about real science and logic to run our lives. I guess I have to confess…I am really tired of some clod who has never studied science who decides to become a global warming expert (takes about 10 minutes) and tells us how to let them take over our lives and solve all our problems. Can you spell Al Gore?

Posted by Dr. Jim Underwood
 —————
“Forget Politics, Think Economics”

Forget global warming, forget melting ice, forget rising seas, and forget smog-blanketed cities. But don’t forget that the USA spends about $1 million per minute on foreign oil, $64 million per hour and more than $52 billion a year for Persian Gulf imports alone to feed its addiction for foreign oil. Don’t forget we are paying for both sides of the war by helping to finance the enemy, while at the same time bearing the tremendous cost of the war to support their petro-oligarchs. Don’t forget that we are a debtor nation that is losing its financial, technical and manufacturing prowess. It’s about us, humanity and our future, that we keep our dollars in the USA by getting off petroleum and utilize clean, abundant, and domestically-produced energy sources. Only through these actions can we ensure our children’s children will have any measure of opportunity, which is rapidly drifting away.

by
Barry Stevens
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Which is exactly why I am working on tertiary oil recovery in old oil fields and power generation technology that provides almost 0% emissions.

Posted by Dr. Jim Underwood
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Home on the Range or Can Your EV Get You Home?

I read your blog – and thought it was pretty thoughtful!!! Two Tumbs up, Barry!

EVs are not like “normal” cars in other ways…

a – using electricity… there is an power budget at each step of the way..

— KWh lost in charging efficiency

— KWh lost in the wire drop between your EV and the power plant (7.5%)

— Power plant efficiency… 33-35% efficient power – means that 65-67% of the energy is dumped in the surroundings – before transmission over the wire…

b – profitability… big money is made in car repair parts and services… no big oil change for EVs… for example… but there are OTHER NEW service items to perform… So it’s a big new learning curve for mechanics… and it can be QUITE dangerous…!!!!

c – EVs can last a GREAT DEAL LONGER… it’s the complexity of a gas engine – and the vibration aspects.. it does remain to be seen – but an EV should last 3X longer than a standard Gas Car – if maintained… we’ll see…

Still.. I think Commercial EVs are going to be great for all of us!! Especially in North Texas…!!

Posted by Jerry Robinson
—————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Gee, maybe Americans don’t believe in global warming because Europe does.

After all. the “Old World” has sucked us into two world wars, an sustainable social welfare economy, and is the home of the most offensive political philosophy ever (call it Communism, Fascism, Socialism, liberalism, progressivism, whatever). So a bit of skepticism may be in order. Who could blame us?
(And we’ve seen their own blatant hypocrisy regarding Kyoto)

Now, whether we buy too much oil from Saudi princes, and other assorted reprobates, is another matter all together. But so is the entire ethanol scam. Both speak to the influence of the enviro’s, played against our own goodness and naivety. Hopefully, the people are beginning to realize they may have made a fool’s bargain, and we will begin to maximize our own energy resources.

We better. After all, only the lazy, or the dictatorial, feel we need to initiate an economic cataclysm in order to develop new technologies.

Subsidies? Sure the oil bidness receives subsidies, and that should end. Same for ethanol, wind, solar, batteries, etc. But try not to confuse a tax break with a subsidy. There’s a MAJOR difference, and I’d hate to have to start the entire conversation way back at the “who’s money is it anyway” point.

Posted by Eric Zepp
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Conserve Energy: Ration gasoline “now”, Shorter work week, return to cities from suburbs, business open 5 days week, Lower/Raise thermostats, mass transit, reclaim strip mines, plant trees, recycle, rotate crops, conserve forest reduction.

Posted by Gary Ogden
—————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

There are theories that fluctuations in atmospheric methane levels caused the medieval warming and the warming that ended the latest ice. Methane is approximately 25 times as strong as CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Posted by Neil Farbstein
————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

” Global Warming ” is like the ” Theory of Evolution “. A lot of science yet you still have to have faith to belive. It is just another belief and not everyone is going to believe or have the same faith you have.

Lets be good stewards of the planet just becuase it is the right thing to do and not force or brain wash everyone to believe in the religion of science.

Go Green!

Posted by Going Green
—————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: The Texas Institute
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

That’s a magic piece, Jim!!!

Barry’s point is dead on, as well.. Conflict drives the price of oil up, and then you have this feedback effect going on….

It would be in the interest of every oil producing nation is all the oil consumers could cut consumption dramatically… more basic economics.

But Barry, you don’t want to get caught up in the grandstanding. Lots of folks talk the talk – you know what I mean. But if you WANT TO JUST DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE -then you are one of the few…

Truth is – in the DFW area – if you want to CREATE novel, innovative “green products” – that the deck is really stacked against you.

Finding funding for a small startup, finding local plastics molding and manufacturing, local PCB manufacturing… these are not drop dead easy to find.

Finance community would rather “profitably” factor money – at best – rather than get involved in genuine, novel technology.

Go invent something that can change the world – and you will find that it is probably easier to make it in China than in Fort Worth or Dallas.

So to me… talk is cheap. Doing something is not – its hard.

–jerry

Posted by Jerry Robinson
 ————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

Firstly, instead of believe, what would you suggest? Does understand or to have the Gnosis fit better? Secondly Anthropogenic contributions to the inventory of greenhouse gas is measured. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Thirdly, your comment about the average man or woman (person) on the street may be concerned with other needs of like not being hit by a car in the street.

Fourthly, vested interests are understood by most. Such vested interest might cause the political stance by Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, who is in a Fossil Fuel pumping state.

Lastly, I cannot agree with the helplessness perspective that is suggested by Ian Byrne

I know of plenty of people that did as I did in Oregon, USA when we could buy a Block
of Wind Power at a couple of cents per kWh more. I had that before I installed 3,000

Watts of Solar Photovoltaic modules on my house. Citizens voted in a facilitating group
called the Energy Trust of Oregon and demanded by State Law a portion of funding from the Utilities that were publicly owned for incentive payments. By the way Oregon
has about half of the power supplied by Hydropower dams and that is renewable and clean. A good amount of wind has gone into the grid also in the Pacific Northwest.

A conclusion adjustment needs to be developed by many people who are stuck in Kyoto Accord views. Much has been done by States and Local government not to mention much by Federal agencies too outside of the Kyoto accord. The special treatment for India and China who has taken the Lion’s share of Clean Development Mechanism funds and other economic benefits only to become also the largest CO2
source entity and perhaps the fastes growng one also. The USA is not without faults but not without redeeming qualities.

Posted by Sidney Clouston
——————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

I think that there are several important points here.

Firstly, language is crucial. By using the word “believe” we are elevating global warming to an act of faith, rather than a more mundane acceptance of the evidence that most of us can see happening around us. And with so many competing (religious) faiths, we are all accustomed to reject some faiths, so it’s easier for us to reject “global warming”.

Secondly, the point above about it being “man-made” accelerated climate change (and living in Britain it’s possible that we may experience at least seasonal cooling at a result of complex weather patterns induced by rapid changes). Actually that’s two points – we really should be talking about climate change (which correctly expresses a degree of uncertainty) rather than the more benign sounding global warming, and secondly highlighting that although there are always natural climate variations too, what we are seeing is almost certainly as a direct result of man’s own unintentional acts, mainly by pumping CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere.

Thirdly, we have to consider the scientific knowledge of the average man or woman in the street. Some of the evidence is complex and not always given to simple causal relationships; if Joe Public is confused then that’s not anything to be ashamed of – so are some scientists! But we shouldn’t lose sight of the overwhelming consensus that something is happening, and on balance it’s not going to be good for us.

Fourthly, we should not be surprised if the fairly basic level of scientific education leads to a mistrust of science, just as it does of politicians and many other figures of authority. And those scientists or politicians who seem to be under the control of one business lobby or another don’t help gain trust in those who are absolutely honest.

And finally, there’s a sense of helplessness, that the problem is too big almost to comprehend and certainly too big to do anything about. Under those circumstances it’s actually not all that irrational to turn away from the problem and pretend it doesn’t really exist; maybe next year some scientists will discover that they were all wrong, or there’s a magic bullet that will solve the problem. People don’t feel empowered to take action – they need assurance that even small steps will help combat climate change (and don’t always have to mean missing out on things that we enjoy having or doing).

Posted by Ian Byrne
——————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

Evidence of Global Warming

Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists The Earth is warming and human activity is a primary cause. To appreciate the urgency of this problem, it’s important to understand the ways global warming … www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008#ixzz1F0VPTaQ7

Posted by Sidney Clouston
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

Maybe a better question is why so many people accept that C02 is the cause of global warming, and why do so many people dismiss the Medieval Warming Period ?

Posted by Jim Stefano
—————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Hi Shrubber,

I agree that the military should have contingency plans for all eventualities including global warming (and global cooling for that matter. And alien invasion and asteroid impacts and the second coming…).

That’s the nature of their business.

But scientists advocating civilian public policy should confirm the science first, otherwise the general public is eventually going to laugh at and ignore us.

Do you, or the military, or anyone else have a model able to predict long term temperature trends? Is that model publicly available for peer review and comment?

If you do, I accept it (or maybe I’ll attempt to peer review it, although I’m more of a writer than a scientist but we all got to start somewhere).

As I recall, this debate started out trying to figure out why the public won’t listen to scientists when they’re not using science to bolster their arguments.

Posted by Chuck Black
————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

The point that I think is lost in the debate of the talking heads is that it doesn’t actually matter if global warming is human driven or even significantly influenced. A real issue is what will happen as a result of this: when temperatures do increase and climates shift it will have socio-political implications that directly effect our national security and economic standing. I’ve collaborated with our folks in the government who are concerned about this because it directly impacts our defense planning. They don’t care about man-made or not : what they do care about is what happens next when it manifests.

Posted by Shubber Ali
—————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Yes, indeed. I succeeded sometimes by finding an element of the proposed solution that did have near term, visible outcome. You can get that part funded. After it succeeds, there is an ensuing increment which then has visible, near term impact; and so on. An effort with severable but supporting elements and incremental outcomes usually works. Projection of asteroid impact in 100 years doesn’t work.

Posted by David Finkleman
———–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Excellent information, Richard. The most significant political problem is that the effects of (expensive) mitigation could not be assessed for a long time whereas stimulus programs might have immediate effect. Delayed gratification is not in the political vocabulary. We face this with space debris, which is another environmental problem. Why spend money now when the outcome might hardly be noticeable. If space does not become as it was in WALL-E, who could prove that it happened because we cleaned things up.? It’s figurative Elephant Repellent. The public can only measure the effect of Ozone depletion through sales of suntan lotion. Whether they die of skin cancer might not be immediately and profoundly attributed to Ozone depletion.

Posted by David Finkleman
———-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Professionals + Fellows
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

When EPA was formed in 1970, I worked with Lee Attaway and others to form an Advanced Research projects Agency for Environment (ARPA-EN). We developed a prioritized list, funding and a parallel series of project plans for science projects that needed to be started in order to have a robust scientific database. It never happened. In 1973, I testified before a Congressional Committee using my Hurricane Agnes Recovery History about the importance of a single clearinghouse for national disasters. That same year same year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was formed. Again the science associated with natural disasters was put on the back burner. In 1985, I was part of a team that developed a series of environmental threads (somewhat like the Hardy Boy Series of stories) required to form a robust scientific basis for environmental protection. This is when it was driven home to me that foreign data was not equal to USA data because this project fell through due to too much foreign data. From 1987 to 1994, NASA had a manned aircraft program to measure the ozone depletion in the stratosphere, I helped design the sensors for this manned aircraft program. From 1994 to 2002, NASA along with DOD, EPA and DOE put together a plan to fly unmanned aircraft to 100.000 feet altitude to get the ozone depletion data necessary to develop a robust data base. I was the industry representative to the NASA ERAST Board. To summarize, the USA has spent billions of dollars on environmental science understanding and gotten little in return. The high percentage of Americans that believe Global Warming is not real simply shows what a failure these efforts have been. By the way, NASA EARST gave way to Reaper for the Military and FEMA has been a success as a clearinghouse for disasters.

Posted by Richard Wagaman
—————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist

Hello Bruce,

Respecting your view, you’ve not said anything to convince me to abandon my own. I would disagree that, ‘…science is not divided.’ It is so divided some have been almost vehement in making sure their views were not inappropriately bent to support what seems to be a largely politically driven agenda.
 
In support of the ‘division’ or ongoing debate, I simply did a Google search on “global temperature graph”. Nothing tricky. Two links came up that can be debated a couple different ways, for, against, or that the Sun has far more impact than anything ‘we’ can do here ourselves. (*) http://bit.ly/eroMfI (**) http://bit.ly/eAK1xC

I don’t think there is any debate there is ‘climate change.’ Nothing to pat myself on the back for. It will change whether we’re here or not. I do think it is highly debatable whether we can draw meaningful conclusions; whether we can forecast 5 months ahead let alone decades; and that we have any ability to do anything about it. Just look at how good they did forecasting the effect of volcanic eruptions and debris over Europe last year–they blew it–and that’s many times what we’re capable of putting in the air using our wee little exhaust pipes.

Regardless of the climate change debate, I think as good custodians of the Earth, it is incumbent upon us to do our part to keep it clean. We should leave things at least as good as we found them, if not better, whenever possible. I don’t need a politician to impress that upon me. Even that though, is a largely ‘rich economy’ luxury. Poorer nations simply struggling to feed their people don’t have such a nice philosophical luxury.

Posted by J. T. Pedersen
—————-

Advertisements
7 Comments leave one →
  1. February 27, 2011 9:58 AM

    “Universal Exports Limited – Luxembourg
    “Universal Exports Limited Belgrade – Serbia
    Representing companies in Serbia and the Balkans
    Green Energy Experts
    e-mail universal.exports. office@gmail.com

    We announce international tender

    for manufacturers and suppliers of equipment

    as follows:

    1. PV solar power plant, installation of 35 megawatts, with the tracker, and monitoring of the movements of the sun in two axes, remote control and warranty for parts and equipment at least 15 years.
    Delivery of the signed Memorandum of Understanding Agreement for the delivery and assembly in stages of 5 years. Payment in stages, a month during the fiscal year.

    Service, maintenance and spare parts, for the time of warranty, and post-sales period. Suggestions for improving the system are displayed as a plus in the offer.

    2. Wind Farm Power Plant (WFP), installation of 75 megawatts.
    Same conditions as a first point

    3.Bio-gas manufacturing plant, electrical and thermal, the minimum installed capacity of 250 MW, generating power, waste water from the surrounding cattle farms (75,000 head of cattle and pigs), poultry farms (50,000 broilers), egg farm(25,000 hens) and populated area for a population of more than 5,000 people +3000 day at work.

    Thermal energy is used for district heating of industrial plants, greenhouse production of early vegetables, salads and berries, housing, and transportation routes (roads and rail network (as well as hot water heating, and remote distribution for the same .

    Conditions same as in the first position.

    3.Biomass manufacturing plant, electrical and thermal, the minimum installed capacity of 250 megawatts of power generation, waste treatment of 12,000 ha of area under crops (maize, wheat) close to 30 kilometers, and processing of biomass from our producing fields (3.000 Hectares under soybean, rye and oats).
    Thermal energy is used for district heating of industrial plants, greenhouse production of early vegetables, salads and berries, housing, and transportation routes (roads and rail network (as well as hot water heating, and remote distribution for the same

    Conditions same as in the first position.

    4.Biomass-bio diesel production systems, processing and production of bio-diesel from soybean, oil presses, and processing of soy residue for animal feed. The system provides for the separation of paraffin from the intermediate, and storage capacity for annual production of 40,000 tonnes of bio-diesel in surface tanks.

    Conditions same as the first point.

    All interested parties may apply to the tender, offering the full information about yourself, and a written presentation of your company’s previous work and the works executed, and their production quality certification ISO, and end-product systems by CE, TUV and other certificates.

    Conditions for the Tender Documents, with the launch of the company, can getthe e-mail address listed in the title, with a note on the letter
    – “for the Tender, New Vrbovski, Republic of Serbia, Confidential”
    On the hands of CEO Universal Exports Limited

    Competition for the first presentation of the company is 15 days from the date of publication

  2. Steve Ivy permalink
    February 27, 2011 2:44 PM

    Why don’t they believe in it? Well this explains a whole lot of it…

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair

    Or as I paraphrase it “It is difficult to get a nation to understand something when the very essence of their way of life depends on them not understanding it.”

    If one truly understands the stark reality of climate change and peak oil (and one is not suicidal) it also requires them, to respond to it, and making a logical and appropriately scaled response will by definition “change the world.”

    I think on one level (the intellectual one) the deniers really do get it, they aren’t blind. They just can’t get past the emotional stuff because it hurts too much.

    So they end up in a painful place. One ruled by “Cognitive Dissonance” where their logical mind tells them one thing and their more powerful (and more “real”) emotional mind tells them another completely different thing.

    It is a bad place for an individual, but it’s even worse place for a society.

    I makes them highly susceptible to suggestion. Any joker that comes along that provides them even the most implausible theory that allows the ever more broken status quo to continue will be quickly assimilated into a growing body of lies.

    Sooner or later the law of supply and demand, or physics, or thermodynamics, catch up and mother nature will settle the debate for us. With floods and famines and pestilence.

    But somehow even that stuff can be used to re-write reality to fit the myths can’t it?

    I just wish those of us that do get it didn’t have to pay the price for those that refuse to.

    I sound very gloomy don’t I?

    But really I am not! Because I have found the answer(s.)

    “Permaculture”

    It sounds like “just a word” but it is actually the answer to everything.

    It’s a the philosophy of life and it’s a recipe book for the future of civilization.

    Those that adopt it as a new Bible will survive. Those that don’t will die.

    As stark as that sounds, I think the future is going to be a better happier place.

  3. February 27, 2011 6:40 PM

    Barry, regarding your economic rationale:

    If you wish to focus on the economics, please simply chart the price of oil (dollars) versus the value of the dollar relative to either the Euro or the Pound Sterling.

    I’ve done it, and it is clear that monetary policy drives the dollar price for oil, not demand. That should be readily understood. Middle Eastern banking is Euro-centric, not US-centered. First sons go to college in England, not the States, etc…I call it the Bentley Index, that the number of barrels of oil represented by a Bentley adjusted for the RPI (England) barely changed over the decades while the price of oil, from the perspective of someone in the US was increasing dramatically.

    So if you are sincere in your comments, then without investing a farthing in green technologies we can save 40% or more of the spend on oil – and fix all the other issues you provided – simply by pursuing the strong dollar policy we had under Presidents Clinton and Reagan.

    Since Clinton, Democrats and Republicans alike have been trying to manage trade imbalances by managing the value of the dollar (minimizing it) – a ludicrous and failed strategy.

    Litmus test: Check the price of oil before Bush I and Bush II and honestly answer the question if demand for oil and the supply:demand ratio has changed one bit since Clinton and Reagan.

    Regarding the scientific rationale:

    Unless you’ve seen one, I have yet to see a multi-variate regression analysis that evaluates the dozens of possible factors involved in climate change (solar radiation, volcanic activity, rifting under the oceans) – including both spot and multi-year rolling average values. Most individuals familiar with statistics understand that drawing conclusions by trying to curve fit one variable is flawed (notorious parables include the studies of the Thames swan population and of fertile female rabbit births). Perhaps if the science presented supporting global warming – and the alleged impact of Mankind – wasn’t “voodoo” and instead was valid, there would be more believers. Then again, perhaps a valid analysis would thoroughly de-bunk the premise that Mankind is the controlling variable for the climate.

    If you are thinking that there has been a multivariate regression analysis completed, please provide me with the hierarchy of variables, including interactions.

    Thanks

  4. March 7, 2011 1:01 PM

    I am definately gonna subscribe, this is soo interesting, love your thoughts.

  5. March 9, 2011 5:50 PM

    Nishikawa,
    Thank you!
    Barry

Trackbacks

  1. Pro Blogger News
  2. Commemorative Edition - is 2012 real?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: