Skip to content

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

February 28, 2011

Comments continue to pour in about readers feelings towards the highly polarizing subject of Climate Control and Global Warming. Reading and maintaining the comments has delayed another posting. Felt it was worth a sequel.

In the course of reading all these comments, it became clear that some tend to use Climate Change and Global Warming, synonymously. To talk credibly, one must understand the meaning and causes of each term.

The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, “the phrase ‘climate change’ in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures.”

Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:
• Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun;
• Natural processes within the climate system (e.g. changes in ocean circulation);
• Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g. through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.)

Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climatic patterns.

Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, “global warming” often refers to warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

Again, the comments are posted “as is” with no alterations or corrections other than required for formatting purposes only. Each comment is separated by several dashes ———.

Now for the comments!

————-

LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Members Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?

Since global warming is not perceived as an immediate threat to their comfy lifestyle; even believers will procrastinate before taking action.

Posted by Ari Minkkinen
———–
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 Chuckle,

The military treats this slightly more seriously than the alien invasion and asteroid contingencies, just FYI. In the conversations i’ve been involved in, the issue is not whether the climate is changing – that is taken as given as the basis for the planning of the various scenarios. They didn’t look at (nor really seem to care) if it was man-made; that was actually irrelevant for the purposes of determining what likely scenarios would unfold and the resultant impact on security of our nation due to such things as the economics of food and potential for food shortages (shifting zones of production driving both).

Cheers,
Shubber

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

Nature will strike back, in any case. With or without mankind…

Posted by Arno A. Evers
————–
Ari Minkkinen
Since global warming is not perceived as an immediate threat to their comfy lifestyle; even believers will procrastinate before taking action.
————
Barry Stevens • Arno,
LOL, I would but concerned someone would answer “the Earth is Square.”
Barry
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Members Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?

That would be our risk, Barry…as we had to tolerate answers like this…

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

Sorry about that Shubber. Serves me right for getting your name wrong.

But I didn’t miss your point.

Instead, I agreed that the military needs to take into account possibilities and potential situations as a component of their military planning. The military needs to functions in all climates, during food shortages and should be studying the economics of food during shortages.

But science and the military have different roles in American society.

Your point has nothing whatsoever to do with how scientists are perceived when they forget to use scientific arguments in their public statements?

It doesn’t even relate to global warming (after all, many of us dress differently in the winter, even if we’re soldiers).

There is the possibility that you missed my point (in much the same way that I missed the proper spelling of your name).

Cheers,
Chuck

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

Thanks for the laugh Douglas! I even had to share your message with my wife to make sure I understood it correctly.

Let’s start with a definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

No one, NO ONE has observed the temperature 1,000,000 years ago. Methods made by men to determine temperature has been subtituted for observation and therefore requires you to “believe” in thier conclusions since NO ONE has ever observed it. You have not one eye witness to bring to the table to “empirically founded” any theory brought forth by anyone claiming that the world is ending due to “Global Warming” and that this change is strictly due to mankind. You, wether you want to admit it or not, have a belief in science that requires faith. (period) Men of science, not all of them, but some that point fingers at religion and say “it can’t be becuase it is man made”, I say to them, science is man made, so does that mean it can’t be?

Hope you truly don’t believe that science is flawless?

Thanks again.

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

Going Green’s answer approaches an exemplification of the answer to this thread’s question, i.e. a preponderance of U.S. citizens are so immersed in ideology that the capacity to differentiate between conclusions, or explanations, that are faith based from those empirically founded has been lost.

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

To me, the answer to the original question can be found in the argument that increased snowfall is indicative of global warming.

Posted by Philip C. Steiner
——————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Members Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? https://barryonenergy.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/readers-commnets-why-dont-americans-believe

“Doing something” about global warming involves radical changes to our lifestyles. This is something society is not yet prepared to accept. Especially when you have irresponsible commmentators milking every half truth for all it is worth. In the end, America will come around to the “inconvenient truth”. Winston Churchill’s famous comment comes to mind: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else”

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

I’m convinced that we will be in a shooting war with China by 2020 over scare resources such as oil. For this reason alone, I don’t support any actions that will penalize the USA. We never should have moved our manufacturing industries to them.

However, I do believe there is something to Climate Change. Note that I use “Climate Change” rather than “Global Warming” because the latter is a misleading name. People who don’t understand the difference between global climate and local weather tend to jump on the latter with, “Look, it’s cold outside. That disproves global warming.”

Out of the 18 worst polluted cities on the planet, 18 are in China. If anyone needs to clean up their dirty ways, it’s the Chinese.

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

Presumably 98% of scientists dismissed ‘continental drift’ when it was first annunciated. And before that presumably 98% of the scientists dismissed the notion that the earth revolved around the sun.
Scientists agree on the notion that climate change is happening. Its just that there are so many opinions as to why it is happening and in what broad direction it is changing.
Maybe Americans are just sick of scientists and have a sneaking suspicion that they are neither right nor wrong—–just confused!
Or maybe some of them are smart enough to know that when all scientists agree they might still be wrong.
And of course we haven’t even touched on the fact that many of their views(scientists that is) have been formed on the basis of computer models. Computer models that have no base point.
And the US position in the economic world is under threat from China who seems to be indifferent.
Maybe Americans cant afford to believe!

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

I don’t have a dog in this fight and remain firmly perched on the fence. That being said, I am amazed by how quickly some dismiss the potential threat today. By all accounts about 98% of the scientific community sees it as a proven threat. Yet, you hear people dismissing it because Rosh Limbo poo-pooed it on his show.

Folks, if you get your “scientificals” from Rosh, Glenn Beck, or Fox News, you need to go stand in the corner and put the dunce’s cap on.

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

Thank you Going Green. I feel privileged if I can cause just one person to smile.

You are quite correct with the definition of science but although no body directly observed a past action or condition does not mean that it cannot be inferred by observation and experimentally derived understanding of physics, without resorting to faith in anything that can’t be proven. One does not need to observe the impact that caused an impact crater to know with certainty that it was indeed caused by an impact. Similarly past temperatures can be inferred by the analysis of geological and chemical evidence and that evidence has provided a record with respect to time of cyclic temperature variations which have resulted in ice ages and intervening periods of relative warmth. For whatever reason, the inescapable conclusion is that Earth is in an epoch of temperature cycles and one quality of cycles is that there are no points of stasis, merely maxima and minima. Therefore we are either in a cooling or warming phase and there seems to be little evidence to indicate that we are experiencing a cooling phase. Only a lunatic would argue that the “the world is ending due to “Global Warming” and a persuasive arguement that global warming is strictly due to mankind would be very difficult. However, we know unequivocally that humanity is increasing the concentrations of gasses which have high specific heats and thus causing an increase in the specific heat of the atmosphere. Humanity may not be causing the cyclic warming but we are certainly exacerbating it. Of course the world will not end. Venus is still happily orbiting the Sun even after its oceans evaporated into what is now an atmosphere hot enough to melt lead. What faith? This is all based on observation and physics.

Certainly science is not flawless, we only recently became aware of 99.9999999999….% of the universe but this enormous knowledge was not revealed by religion. Is it religion or the application of physics and chemistry that enables your communication via computer and internet? Are you trying to dismiss scientific conclusions on ideological grounds?

Posted by Douglas Bashaw
—————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: White House
Discussion: Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?

There may be some fiction.
But climate change is fact as low-lying areas of some countries have gone under water for that.

Posted by Emdadul Haque
 —————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Wind Energy
Discussion: Members Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?

Do you know the answer Barry? What is your opinion?

Posted by Poul van Slooten
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: White House
Discussion: Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?

Copycat.MD

Posted by Mark Davis
——————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Green
Discussion: Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?

Politicised geo-climactic events are a representation of the need for politicians & certain of our fellow citizens clammer for power over those perceived less fortunate to ‘understand or comprehend’ whats happening.

Christchurch NZ is a tragic event as scientists have been representing as a 1 in 5,000year event, almost the recorded events period of civilisation as we know it to be.

Therefore, it could not be said that such an event is representative of recorded geo-climactic data of say 125years or 1/40th of a 1:5,000year event.

Merapi volcanic eruption of late 2010 was a dramatic event of a cycle that represented events of European colonial data when in 1873 Krakatau erupted violently but so did Merapi but ina controlled fashion as is her nature & again in same fashion 2010 – so 237years in that cycle

Merapi 3months later continues to cause great damage due to cold lava flows from intensive rainfall.

If we were to say human impacts represent a phase of our planets history of 7 millennium – that is perhaps one millionth of the planets geological events 7 billion years

Humans are dreadful managers of the environment in which they live but to believe we are masters of change, being climate change is perhaps wandering into dangerous ground where we begin to imagine we are arbiters of creation.

Action and reaction – the classic Newton Laws – OK about the limit of human capacity & even that dictated by nature.

Love the energy around this topic though but terribly concerned of the possibilities of politicians to ‘control’ human with ludicrous arguments about the capacity of humans to dictate destiny.

Are politicians suggesting if we stop this and change that the planet will respond perfectly?

Wisdom seems to be sacrificed on the alter of political correctness all to often

And still no arguments put by politicians to engage better management of consumption – food, water, energy – wow that would be dangerous – the voters might wake up & realise they are being manipulated!

Its relatively easy for any well off human to cut their energy use by half – easy

Its also relatively easy for any well off human to change energy source by that same measure

What’s not easy for politicians is to say to humans [voters] they need to cut & change their own practices – oh no!! far better to rabble on about climate change – no leadership required, just join the chorus!! Chairman Mao, Stalin, Lenin – ring any bells?

Common humans, lets wake up & reflect on consciousness of past generations, including those we revere for the greatness, flaws and all

Cut the me me me

Posted by David S
—————–
Emdadul Haque

There may be some fiction.
But climate change is fact as low-lying areas of some countries have gone under water for that.
————–
New comment on your post “Readers Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?”
Author : Steve Ivy
Comment:

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.
————-
New comment on your post “Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?”
Author : Paul Khanton
Comment:

Americans don’t believe that climatic change is due to mankind’s contribution. Rather, most Americans probably believe that climate change occurs regardless of the actions of mankind.

The rants and representations of those who really are working personal agenda fail to sway most Americans. As Abe Lincoln once said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. Those working their personal agenda pray on the goodness inherent in most people. Eventually, however, good people take a deep breath, realize that the earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming which we have yet to fully understand (sun activity, volcanic activity, rifting in the oceans, etc.) – and realize that this is not the hottest period in the history of the earth, but rather somewhere in the cycle between ice ages. It may get warmer…it may get cooler. In the 70’s the same scientific community that Chicken Littles global warming was warning of an imminent ice age. If you predict all possibilities, of course you will eventually be correct.

Al Gore as the personalization for global warming also does the proponents no long term good. He is a self-promoter, who profited from the tobacco settlement he shepherded through Congress, and is poised to profit from carbon credits, etc., that he is promoting today. The spirit of P.T. Barnum lives in Al Gore.

As far as “not taking any chances” – if we have a major volcanic event and the earth’s temperatures cool 15 degrees – what then? Krakatoa, Yellowstone, Santorini…etc. all have as likely a probability of occurring as a continuation of the trend in global warming cited by proponents.

Even the trend in global warming is suspect because of the data’s preponderence from heat island effect areas. I’d like to see summary data from upstate New York and other areas that have not experienced explosive human population growth – and the concomitant temperature impact from asphalting what was green pasture, etc.

As regards the cost of petroleum – that is more a function of monetary policy than supply and demand. That is fact, not fiction. Just try some curve fitting analysis – going back 20 years and you’ll find a 100% fit other than moments of political unrest spiking the value briefly (Gulf War, Yukos nationalization, etc.). And we do have alternative sources of cheap energy with known and proven technologies: natural gas and coal. Natural gas trades at a 70% discount (dollar per BTU) from crude. It is in such abundance that our reserves can be measured in centuries or millenia. It is also a “cleaner” alternative to the other abundant energy supply, coal.

Let’s not ignore the fact that we have a third abundant source, too: hydropower. But Luddites want to remove our dams while the Chinese build new ones.

I certainly can’t speak for anyone but myself. But I cannot be convinced that public funds should be used to continue to subsidize technologies that have not progressed to become market competitive. In fact, the green energy movement has become a welfare child – so accustomed to welfare (subsidies) for its existence that the existence of the subsidies have probably served to retard the development of truly market-competitive technologies.
—————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

I first want to make a statement about my belief in the green movement, “I truly believe man has been destructive in his environemnt, bulldozing down, burning up and polluting just about everywhere he lives. This is not in question, we observe this daily! To be responsible for which we do, focus on doing it better with knowing there are reactions to every action. If we continue to pollute out of control, we will have further negative effects in our enviroment. Man does effect His sorroundings and can choose to be a positive influence or not to care and have a negative one.” You can quote me on that.

Put everything in perspective. We occupy a small fraction of the surface of the planet. Also look at Global Warming science history and it is easy to point out many, many flaws and wrong projections. Back in the 80’s we where told that by 2010-2012 how dark the sky would be with pollution and that everyone would be wearing masks to breathe, where is that? All projections from the 90’s are being fast forwarded becuase again they have not happened the way the science of that day projected.

I am doing the right thing, I do my part and try and educate as many people as possible to do the same. I do it without the bad science of Global Warming. Science in some areas is better then others. Medical science for an example has saved countless lives just since the 50’s when it comes to cancer. So science has it’s value and adds technologies for us to use. For some and this includes a lot of Global Warming followers, it takes on an absolute that just is not there. Not even 99.9999% is correct. I would fare to give my opinion that only about 70-80% will turn out to be well founded when it comes to Global Warming science. One main reason is that politics is involved. Politics and science have no business together.

I never dismissed any of the science you believe in on ideological grounds. I am only pointing out that science requires you to believe in it. I will stir the pot by using this example: there is a lot of “science” to show the Earth is 7-10,000 years old, that there was a massive floood about 4,000 years ago and that there where dinosaurs around at the same time man exsisted. If you take science as the absolute and you trust it 99.99%, then how would you view the theory of Evolution, which has never been proven, and the theory of Creation, which also has no absolute proof. Both sciences have studies and science that points to thier views! You must choose which to BELIEVE. So science always needs the individual to place some belief in it, always. You can choose to believe in global warming or not, same choice I have. Why do soo many want to force everyone to believe or write them off as uneducated, fools for not believing in your science????? Why can’t we choose to do the right thing for our own reason? If we are doing the right thing, Going Green!, does it matter wether or not I drink the koolaid?

Go Green!

Posted by Going Green
—————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: RENEWABLES AND ENVIRONMENT
Discussion: Members Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?

simply, because they alone share about 40% of it’s reasons!!

Posted by Mahmoud Shattel
———–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Washington Technology Industry Association (WTIA)
Discussion: Members Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?

The key problem is the naming — “Climate Change” is a far better name. Especially if you are in San Diego shoveling snow this morning…. Many psychological studies have found that people are prone to “tiny url” most information recieved. Global warming, is reduced to hotter and hotter…. “I don’t see it”.

Now Climate Change…. “I see it”

Posted by Kenneth Lassesen, M.S
————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Green
Discussion: Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?

Well said, David S.

Being aware of multi-variate regression analysis, I am also concerned that allegedly learned scientists try to curve fit a single variable against a so-called average surface temperature (that ignores heat island impact) to support their professional and personal agenda. The phrase, “Figures don’t lie, but liars sure figure”, comes to mind, as well as parables about studies on the Thames swan population and on fertile female rabbits.

Has anyone seen an multi-variate regression analysis that evaluates literally hundreds of potential variables for hierarchy and interactions? Where is the data analysis that includes solar radiation (immediate, 10 year, 20 year, 50 year rolling averages, etc. – sunspots, etc.), volanic activity, ocean rifting, surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, etc., as potential variables?

Perhaps if someone actually analyzed data properly there would be no “He said, she said” argument regarding global warming. But as David S. so rightly points out, maybe there is global warming – but man’s influence is inconsequential and not the controlling variable. I cannot believe for a moment that the scientists that present simple single variable analysis are ignorant that their methodology is fatally flawed – and that they should be using multivariate analytical techniques. Maybe our leaned scientists simply don’t want to publish analyses that controvert their hypotheses.

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

@sidney
I was suggesting that “believe” can be a loaded word (it’s actually also quite easy not to believe in things – I don’t believe in Fairies, for example, despite having read Peter Pan), and that “understand” or even “accept the evidence for” is better.

And I agree with you that individuals can (and must!) make a difference, but the way that a lot of commentators talk about global warming/climate change makes it seem too remote and too difficult for the average citizen to do anything. I guess that when it comes to climate issues, neither you nor I are “average”.

(And as someone who cycles to work, I’m also very concerned about not being hit by a car in the street.)

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

In the last few months we have witnessed snow blizzards in the Sinai, floods in the desert in Siwa – drought in NE Kenya – climate change skeptics need to get out more !
For proof see >>> http://www.responseabilityalliance.com/html/cool_stuff.html

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

So your solution to the global fight for resources is war Peter? How about fixing the problem and finding ways to create enough food and energy for everyone through peaceful cooperation rather than relying on nuclear war to reduce the population to a manageable size. The United States is going to wind up being the nation of rice farmers if you don’t stop borrowing 45 cents on every dollar you spend. The results of globalism are great. Ask the people of Asia and South America that you used as your slave labor for 200 years. You just don’t like it because now you can’t spent decades spending money you don’t have to live like a king while the people over here toil like slaves for nothing. Your free lunch is over. Like Dylan said “He that was last will soon to be first cause the times they are a’changin'”. Deal with it! Globalism is the only answer to our problems. China’s defense budget is a pittance compared to the U.S. As a matter of fact, the U.S. spends more on war machinery and defense than the rest of the world combined. i think Chinese soldiers spend more time on disaster training then on war preparations. if you were here to see the amazing work they did in saving millions of lives in just the past few years from earthquakes, to floods, to mudslides, you would be amazed. it makes the blundering of the United States in dealing with natural disasters like New Orleans look absolutely sickening.
The Chinese army goes everywhere in the world on disaster relief operations. you think only the U.S. does that? You don’t have a clue about China’s role in the world. You are really a narrow minded scared little man aren’t you. Are you afraid to sleep in the dark too?
China does not have military bases all over the world. China does not intend to take over the world like you imagine. China is not the enemy of the United States. If you want to make them your enemy than you have a real problem. You are your own worst enemy. I’m glad the Chinese people have more respect for Americans than you have for them.

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

@ Going Green,

Why not post a normal profile name and photo instead of hiding behind a “green” mascot so you can run a smear campaign against the green movement?

Also, I looked up Going Green Technologies, LLC …. Why would you have it classified under the oil industry? Something looks awfully fishy here.

hhmmmm…

Posted by Theresa Young
———————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Energy Professionals
Discussion: Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?

Climate Change or Global Warming is part fiction and part fact. It is part fiction because we have yet to come out with concrete facts and figures to substantiate that climate change is happening. However, we all can see the change around us like change in weather pattern frequently. A thorough study should be done to find out the fact. But may I say something bolder that it may be a cliché by developed countries to slow down the process of development by developing countries??

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

Let’s clear up a few things.

1. The USA comprises about 5% of the world’s population not 2%.

I have also read that it uses about 20% of its energy not 25%. Now if you remember that from WW2 on, it has been the world’s economic engine, you have to ask if those figures are really that out of whack. Will not a country of massive industry use up more energy than a nation of rice farmers?

In response to your implication that we are some sort of energy hogs, let me also ask you which single country has 20% of the world’s population? To me that number points at who is really out of control and irresponsible.

Finally, you state “Worry about your own problems and what you are going to do about them and let the Chinese go about their business without you pointing fingers at them.” Do you really think that China and the West are hermetically sealed off from one another? Do you really think that what one does doesn’t effect the other? We are all fighting over the very same rapidly diminishing supply of natural resources in a horrifically over-populated world.

Globalism is a nice sounding thing in theory but not so much in practice when you look at the results.

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

single drops go ahead to make an ocean. instead of blaming others, we can do our little best. switch off power when not in use, consume less of everthing, walk rather pulling out car , use less of plastic, plant a sapling on every special occassion. i am tired of reading so much about nature catastrophe …so i do a bit myself.

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

You didn’t even read your own article. It noted how few American’s don’t believe in biological evolution, which is the main point I was making. And as for a whole 51% of scientists – technically a majority, but not the 98% the general populace does – believes in some sort of higher power, I would wager most don’t translate that feeling – and that’s all most would say it is – into forcing religious views on others, via taking over the government.

American’s being led by the nose by some organized religions to disbelieve scientific evidence on biological evolution, AND climate change, being consistent with America being the most religious of the 33 ‘advanced countries’, stands unchallenged. Blind belief in imaginary friends in the sky because preachers tell them too, seems to correspond to blind belief in what Murdoch’s Fox False News and other of his ‘news’ outlets tell them to beware those dastardly scientists on evolution and climate change.

Again, I posit: Remove the Fox False News networks, all of Murdoch’s local TV stations he’s planted around the country, and his newspapers – and within a year I predict that, without the disinformation deluge, American public opinion would start returning again to that of a normal, modern, intelligent nation.

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

I thought I acknowledged that China may simply hold a different view to that of the US.
Maybe they have read Bob Carter’s book and the earth is actually cooling.

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

Oh spare me the holier than claptrap, Jeff. We are already butting heads with them in central Asia and Africa over oil and precious minerals. They have build missiles which can sink a Nimitz class carrier. Why do you think they bothered to do that?

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

I forgot to add to Mr. Ireland’s comment. No offense, but you do not seem to have the attitude or common sense of a business professional. I suppose that you do not wish to see one third of the worlds population lifted out of poverty so that they can be the greatest consumer force in the world. Only American’s deserve jobs and a better life, because we are God’s chosen people, right? your protectionist views and your China bashing will not bring you any success at all. if there is a war with China, it will be because of people who think like you.
Americans use 25% of the worlds energy and have 2 percent of the worlds population. Worry about your own problems and what you are going to do about them and let the Chinese go about their business without you pointing fingers at them.

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

Ian, I am afraid that I have to disagree that China is indifferent. China is putting great effort into reducing it’s energy consumption and reducing it’s carbon footprint. The Chinese realize the negative health effects of it’s current pollution levels and the dollar cost in both health care and cleanup as a total of GDP. The Chinese government is taking major steps such as the required use of solar energy in all new low income housing construction, the required greening of rooftops in major cities, and hundreds of other environmentally friendly laws.
Unlike the United States, these projects do not spend years in sub committees only to be buried by political lobbyist groups.
China leads the way in the production of solar and wind power and currently has 30 new nuclear power plants under construction. China is moving towards being as energy efficient as the United States in terms of GDP per energy used.
The Chinese government knows full well that sustainable long term economic growth is a product of increased efficiency and environmental and health preservation is a key part of that progression.

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

What is this “anti-climate science propaganda” that you compere to religion and speak so disparagingly of Dave?

Perhaps you could define the term as a preliminary to an informed discussion on the topic. Without a proper definition, it seems like you’re simply setting up a “straw man.”

After all, according to the article “What do Scientists think about Religion” at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24 , a majority of scientists believe in “a higher power” and evolution at the same time.

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

I would posit that the countries who are most susceptible to anti-climate science propaganda are also the most religious. Same with evolution: Turkey & the US most anti-science, while among the most religious. If you’re willing to be led by preachers or mullahs into believing in invisible friends in the sky without any evidence at all, you’ll also listen to the false prophets eg on the Fox False News Network, when it comes to evolution & global warming.
I posit that if we were to remove the viewers & readers of all of Rupert Mudoch’s many networks, stations, & “newspapers” from the list, America would look much more like a normal, rational country.

Posted by Dave Huntsman
——————-
New comment on your post “Readers Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?”
Author : Paul Khanton

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
—————-
New comment on your post “Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?”
Author : Paul Khanton

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

@ Going Green,

In an effort to return the the topic, please explain why you don’t believe in “the global warming bit”. Do you think that average global temperatures are static or declining and why? Do you disbelieve in ice age cycles? If so, is it because 100,000 year cycles would be impossible on a planet that is only 7,000 to 10,000 years old?

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

Gary, I agree with you about Afghanistan. But I don’t think invading Iraq for the Oil is in good faith, and the global opinion is that is the only reason they went in. Nor was it acting in good faith in any other countries that was/is invaded to act as a convenient battleground for the US vs the Soviet regimes. As the African saying goes “when elephants fight it is the grass that suffers”, and the damage that was done to so many countries by both sides was extreme.

Frankly it is time to stop hiding behind the “helping our allies (whether they want it or not)” smokescreen. If a countries people don’t give their consent to being invaded, it is just that, an invasion by a foreign power. Time for the planet to grow up, and this sort of bullying is doing far more harm than good.

The UN, whether you like it or not, is the global meeting point for countries and they asked for no invasion of Iraq. The US/UK ignored this and invaded illegally anyway.

I agree if China could control they climate they would, just as the US is experimenting with now to do the same thing. But frankly we may need it if things get much worse(heaven forbid) on the climate front.

China did help Korea, the same way it helped/helps Africa. To its benefit no doubt, but any other country big enough could have done the same thing, so it’s no good being jealous now because Africa is being influenced by a country that worries the US. They have had much less influence on African politics than the empire builders of the world.

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

@ Theresa, A smear campaign? I never said or wrote anything angainst green movement. If you read the profile it clearly states that Going Green is my wifes company, you can find my profile- Ken Harouff. Nothing to hide here.

Is it just becuase I don’t buy the global warming bit? Is that what bothers you?

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

It’s all about what we can extract out of mother earth, oil and rare mineral’s, why do you think we are in Afgntn. Yea, China is helping the world, just like they helped Korea back in the 50’s. If they “could”, they would be the super power in the world however I don’t believe their military would act in good faith as the USA does. I agree, in the future we will be at war trying to protect one of our allies. The only friend in the world that the USA truly has is England. If China could control the global climates— THEY WOULD !!

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

Gee Dave,

I did read the article.

I just wanted to know what you thought about the part where it said that the majority of scientists also believe in God. I see you chose to ignore that part that didn’t support your own theory, suppositions and wagering in favor of another rant.

You say you posit, which is simply a statement made on the assumption that it will prove to be true. But you don’t make any predictions that could be verified and making assumptions lacking citations certainly isn’t science.

That’s not very scientific Dave. You seem to be trying to lead me by the nose to ignore the evidence.

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

It has nothing to do with the science. IT is the “money”!! Recently had the opportunity to see a show on TV by the former Gov. Jesse Ventura on Global Warming. I was surprised how non inflammatory the report was. Their position was that it was all about carbon trading and the mis-managed reporting of data. I suspect that the reason why Americans have issues with Global Warming is that the main processes, developed by the UN etc, did not nothing to impede the generation of greenhouse gases but to simply tax the issue which allows the manufacturers to continue to pollute and pass the extra costs to the consumers. Some individuals were becoming rich on the trading of carbon credits. If the Green Community really believes that GW is being caused by mankind, then they should boycott the massive polluters. If the Green Community believes that there are other reasons for climate change, one should become more self reliant and reduce their participation in the global economy.

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

Thanks Douglas for pulling this back. I have read quite a bit of science that contradicts the science presented for global warming in its most pure form. Obviously there are also parts of global warming science that hold water! The question to start this discussion was why Americans don’t “believe” in global warming and I attempted to answer that with a possible answer that you can choose which science to believe in. I think I was challenged that you do not need belief, that global warming is so factual it just must be true. My example of Evolution vs Creation is very similiar in lots of ways to the global warming vs the non global warming debate. Scientist’s on both sides waving thier proof. I also do not think it is just Americans who struggle to believe in the global warming as it is presented by some extreme groups that would have us living in mud huts and turning away from anything that creates any pollution.

I will answer directly your final question, I personally believe that the Earth is NOT millions of years old and that I decend from rocks. I was not raised to believe the way I do, this is something I have come to in my adult life thru research.

Maybe we could start another discussion with this question: Do you have to believe in global warming to do the right thing?

Douglas I hope you will understand that I get a lot of flack in the green community becuase I do not swallow the whole global warming thing. I really do not understand why soo many find it nescasary to make me believe? I watched a program on one of the busiest and most dangerous soup kitchens in America run by some Franscican Friars. They interviewed several of the volunteers and a couple of them where aithiest. They where there becuase they believed in helping thier fellow man, no one was trying to convert them to christianity becuase it was about helping people and not about religion. Why can’t I be involved with “green” and do the right thing without everyone trying to convert me?

Posted by Going Green
——————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NETWORK
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? by E.G. Austin, The Economist
 
Oh Jeff, you are the naive one. You should read up on just how much the Africans hate your Chinese friends. China is the new colonial power in Africa exploiting it as badly and any of the old European powers. It’s creating jobs in Africa which are being filled by excess Chinese labor from home. The Africans only get the worst low paying jobs.

It’s also the Chinese that prop up that mad man running North Korea.

I could go on, Jeff. However, I’m not being paid to be your current affairs tutor.

Posted by Peter Ireland
 ————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Writing Mafia
Discussion: Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?

Writing is about producing well-crafted prose on whatever subject we are writing about, and stimulating debate, discussion and thought. Bad writing obscures the message; good writing inspires the reader. Any subject is germane to the craft of writing because we are all writing in the real world. Merely writing about writing is ultimately self-indulgent.

Posted by Robert Day
 ————
New comment on your post “Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?”
Author : Robert Day

Comment:
I’m sorry, but I’ve seen the numbers. I’ve talked to the analysts. I’ve examined their methodologies. Irrespective of whatever it is that “Americans don’t believe”, it’s happening and it’s real and we are contributing. This view is based, not on data from one place or another, but on the integration of all the climate data from across the world that’s available to us. Whatever climate data from upstate New York might show, that will not reflect the situation globally.

But let’s pretend, for one minute, that climate change doesn’t have a large human component. Is that any reason to stop trying to mitigate against its effects? Or is a whole nation going to throw up their hands in horror, say “There’s nothing we can do” and continue to consume their way to destruction?

The forecast energy crash of the 1980s and 1990s didn’t happen because enough people and companies took individual steps to make their products more energy-efficient. On it’s own, one solar-powered calculator had no effect. When multiplied across the entire economies of Western – and Eastern – manufacturing and production, energy usage dropped and the crunch never happened. The same must apply to climate change. If everyone deals with the effects and does what they can, then hopefully we can avoid disaster. Only then we can indulge in the luxury of arguing over the causes.
———–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist

It looks like the anti-global warming smear campaign is back in full force with fake profiles and/or no photos…

FYI, do you feel like you are maybe paying more at the pump lately. The profits from Exxon Mobil last quarter absolutely dwarfed that of any other global corporation at $105.2 billion in the last quarter:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/31/news/companies/exxon_mobil_earnings/index.htm

U.S. revenues from carbon trading are less than 1/100th that amount for the ENTIRE year (2010) and prospects for the carbon trading industry have largely evaporated under the current political climate.

Now back to the subject….

According to a survey from Yale University just last year, 63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening but many do not understand the science behind it.

The study finds that just 8% of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B grade when it comes to understanding global warming, while 40% would receive a C or D, and 52% would get an F. The study, “Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change” finds basic gaps in scientific knowledge relevant to the climate.

Here are some of the key findings of the survey:

–57 percent know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat;

–50 percent of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities;

–45 percent understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface;

–25 percent have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification.

“However, many Americans do understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is an important solution.

In addition, despite the recent controversies over “climategate” and the 2007 IPCC report, this study finds that Americans trust scientists and scientific organizations far more than any other source of information about global warming.

Americans also recognize their own limited understanding. Only 1 in 10 say that they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more about the issue. Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a national program to teach Americans more about the issue.”

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/knowledge-of-climate-change

For the full study;

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf

Posted by Brennan Jorgensen
——————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: RENEWABLES AND ENVIRONMENT
Discussion: Members Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?

Because we have been socialized to believe that if we cannot see it, touch it or taste it, then it must not exist. We have never seen the wind, but we see the results thereof. We have never seen heat, but we have seen the evidence thereof. You do not always have to see, touch or taste something to know it is real. People must get beyond the limits of their physical senses. If a melting ice shelf or a drowning polar bear could talk, they would tell us that global warming is real.

Posted by Kenneth Reed
————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: MTBC Connections
Discussion: Anthropogenic or Not, That is the Question!

To paraphrase from another source entirely …
“You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re entitled to interprest facts through your own experience and education. But you’re NOT entitled to invent ‘facts’ to make your case.”

Posted by Bob Brothers
————
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Green
Discussion: Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?
@ David S

As I understand it, the essence of your point is that the earth’s atmosphere is so vast that activities of human beings are not realistically capable of altering it to any important extent. To think that we can and that we have is a kind of hubris on our part.

Would you agree that if the earth’s atmosphere is that large, relative to human activity, then the earth itself is also?

If that is the case, then would it be consistent to say that human activity is too small to cause large changes in the character of the water in the oceans?

Would it also be consistent to say that human activity is also too small to cause large changes of large parts of the landscape?

If it is hubris to think that we are capable of changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, then is it also hubris to think that we are capable of changing our largest bodies of water, or the overall landscape? After all, aren’t these of a similar scale to our atmosphere?

Posted by Antonio Bettencourt
———–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: MTBC Connections
Discussion: Anthropogenic or Not, That is the Question!

Bob and Barry: I am neither skeptical of global warming nor the probable affects we humans have caused. Nor am I mistrustful of Scientists doing science in the scientific community. It is the journalists I mistrust.

I think there is a variance between the New York Times article and the blurb at the Nature website ment to entice you to buy the article for $32 or subscribe. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

The final sentence of the blurb is “Changes in extreme precipitation projected by models, and thus the impacts of future changes in extreme precipitation, may be underestimated because models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming.16” If either of you want to buy the article and send it to me, I will be glad to take the discussion further. But from what I can see, Nature admits that the scientific models do not predict observed increases in severe precipitation.

I was able to find a free paper that discusses “a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analysed with an optimal fingerprinting technique. “. From what I was able to read, the fingerprinting technique involves trying to match actual historical events to predictive modeling results. At first glance, it would seem that they are simply benchmarking and tweaking the models so they are more accurate. But I need to read more before I decide.

I’m glad scientists are doing this work. I am glad Barry and the New York Times and Nature are bringing this to our attention. I don’t think I exaggerated my original misgivings. So what’s the worry?

Posted by Fred Leason
———-
New comment on your post “Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?”
Author : Paul Khanton

To Robert Day:

Saying things doesn’t make them true.

Please provide me with your data sources.

1. Energy Efficient Devices: You claim that there was a decline in energy consumption in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The EIA (US Department of Energy) data indicates that there was no significant reduction in per capita energy consumption as you represent. In fact, per capita consumption in the US was 75% higher during the 80’s and 90’s than it was in the 50’s. Total consumption in the US in trillion BTU increased from 78,122 in 1980 to 84,944 in 1989 to 96,812 in 1999.

Excuse me, that doesn’t appear to support your contention. Maybe you were the only one with a solar powered calculator. Most everyone else bought computers – PC’s when they became available – and maybe you have a solar powered PC, but I sure don’t. Let me know where you got yours.

By the way, what energy crash was forecasted? You mean the forecasts that we would use up our energy reserves? Perhaps you don’t understand how reserves get reported, the dynamics of ad valorem tax and such reporting and its influence on deflating reserves estimates. That is why doomsayers constantly are saying we are running out of energy – yet when the appointed day arrives we have more reserves in the world than on the day that the dire prediction was made.

If you think US Department of Energy data is wrong and your opinion is right, perhaps you can provide everyone with your source of data – including those “energy crash” forecasts.

2. Regarding global warming data: Also I’m interested in knowing your data sources. Please cite them for everyone. Additionally, since you have the data readily at hand, kindly let everyone know the formulaic interactions of the variables – the priority and degree of factors both independent and dependent. I’m especially interested in the solar radiation and geothermal data.

I look forward to learning your sources of data. The E.I.A. is one of my sources. As for global warming, I have seen one regression analysis done in Japan and the data could not support the contention of the global warming proponents (that mankind has any significant influence). The study also was limited to greenhouse gases, solar radiation and volcanism (surface), and ignored many potential variables.

So I am eager to learn of an actual statistically valid analysis that considered dozens of variables over decades of data – what you apparently think you have in your possession or have personally reviewed.——————-

LinkedIn Groups
Group: Think Green
Discussion: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming? By E.G. Austin, The Economist
“Scientist’s on both sides waving their proof”

Scientists on one side, fundamentalists on the other.

To come back to the subject, here is an informative study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

It describes innovation adoption, but can be applied to Climate Change as well.
Americans’ adoption of Climate Change is a matter of time. As Arno said, Nature will strike back. And we know that Mother Nature is a harsh master, or at least, the French, Spanish, Italians and Russians know that. Once a good portion of Americans will have lost a friend or family member into a climate event, then things will move. Until then, we will encounter numerous obstacles such as confusion of science with religion, interference from very powerful interests (big oil)…
In the meantime the best thing to do in my opinion is to walk our talk, to live as green as we can, save money doing it, and share it, maybe without the climate reference if the person listening is not receptive to that. It will make more and more sense to go green, as fossil fuel prices increase. Convincing people to go green is more important that convincing them of the necessity of climate change mitigation. Get them to do the right thing, whatever the reason they choose to do so.
One of the most common arguments against Al Gore was his utility bill:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659
I don’t think anyone could do a better job than Al Gore in explaining the climate predicament, yet he unfortunately failed.
So my feeling is that the best approach is to use the financial argument, until climate events finally convince enough Americans into action.
As Ritu said, single drops make an ocean.

Posted by Andre Lochin
—————–
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Green
Discussion: Climate Change – Fact or Fiction: Global Warming?

To Antonio Bettencourt

The Sun in the next moment could explode, consuming the Earth. That is a possibility. However, just because something could happen doesn’t mean that it is happening.

Could mankind cause global warming? Perhaps. But the question isn’t “could”.

The premise of those seeking political action to fund or legislate economically non-viable alternative energy is that mankind IS causing global warming and therefore mankind can stop global warming.
We skeptics simply ask for evidence – statistically valid evidence. The absence of evidence only causes us to become more skeptical. Do you have a copy of a valid multi-variate regression analysis that considers dozens of prospective variables and creates a hierarchy of variables and variable interactions?

Skeptics aren’t skeptics because they lack intelligence. They are skeptics because they lack proper evidence. Since you aren’t skeptical, you must have that evidence. So please share that evidence with us.

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

It is quite obvious to me that you are out to fracture the green movement with your message that global warming is either irrelevant or is just a hoax while parading around with the “green banner”. Worse yet, in my opinion it appears to be outright cowardly to not state your name and photo in what is supposed to be a professional networking and discussion forum.

Posted by Brennan Jorgensen
——————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: MTBC Connections
Discussion: Anthropogenic or Not, That is the Question!

It’s certainly no revelation that journalists writing for a popular audience all too often squeeze the math and science life out of what they write. Many of them are no more equiped – through education, experience or temperament – to explain or understand the details and nuances of the scientific details than are the majority of their audience. And it’s certainly no smoking gun ah-ha that journalists – just like politicians – sometimes distort or misrepresent to make their point.

Most journalists make honest, serious attempts to present the results of scientific study in language and concepts understandable and meaningful to their non-science readers. That they sometimes oversimplify, omit or get important details wrong is certainly no justification for those of us more scientifically minded to scoff and discredit the underlying truth.

Regarding the climate change discussion, ‘deniers’ can nit-pick this study or that article in the popular press, but …
* The huge preponderance of scientific data confirms that the global climate is changing profoundly (in individual apsects both predicted and surprising).
* Strong – but certainly not conclusive – scientific evidence points to a human role in driving that climate change. ‘How much is human, how much natural?’ is a much more realistic way to pose the question.
* ‘What can we do about it?’ is a murkier scientific question, and ‘What should we do about it?’ leaves the realm of science all together and enters economics and public policy.

What is most disturbing about the climate change debate – including much of the discussion among the presumably intelligent and educated Linked-In community – is the strident, emotional and anti-science bias of the ‘denier’ argument.

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

Brennan, Anyone can place a picture, how do we know it is really you? I hide nothing by not putting a picture of myself. I am not selling me, I am representing an idea, Going Green! Is that not why most of us are in this group? I have not smeared anything nor have I tried to force my beliefs on anyone as you do. Your facts and figures are just that, your facts and figures. If adding links helps, here a few for you:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=123143

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/larry-bell-global-warming/2011/01/22/id/383607

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

and there are a lot more………………….

Have a great day.

Posted by Going Green
——————-
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Global Renewable Energy Network (GReEN)
Discussion: Members Comments: Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?

I’d suggest the naysayers talk to the residents of North Queensland Australis who have been hit with five successive hurricanes, the last a Category five ( think Katrina) in the space of three months. These events are directly caused by ocean temperature rise and have no precedent in either recorded weather history or verbal history of the region ( some 10,000 years) … so, yes, we are getting warmer …

Posted by Jack Riddell
——————

New comment on your post “Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?”
Author : Tom Blair

Comment:
Two reasons I think – both of them good.

First – the scientific method is biased against the adoption of new universal truths. It is a tremendous step to go from 1. Proposition-All crows are black. to 2. I have observed 10,000 crows and they are all black. to 3.It is universally true that all crows are black.

Science is all about scepticism. Scepticism is good – particularly about universal, global and epochial phenomena.

Secondly – there is unfortunately a political agenda wrapped up in this “belief “(your term). Tell me how you feel about “global warming” and I’ll bet I can predict who you voted for in the last election, how you feel about illegal immigration, gay marriage, the UN, second amendment rights, etc. People will be much more likely to “believe” in global warming when it isn’t percieved as part of a political agenda. It needs to become more free of ideological baggage.

Anyway these are just a couple of my thoghts about why American’s don’t believe in global warming. Global warming may be real. But it also may not be. That is the case with scientific theories, but not with scientific truths.

Advertisements
6 Comments leave one →
  1. March 1, 2011 12:03 PM

    A fair and balanced assessment of the state of the debate (although sometimes it’s difficult to follow some of the individual threads, even the ones I contributed comments).

    No one questions that temperature varies and climate changes but the context of those changes, the scientific determination as to the extent of the effective contribution by human activities and the logical consequences of our developing capabilities to effect climate each affect the tone and tenor of this debate.

    Perhaps we’re at the dawn of the Geo-engineering age (http://www.disinfo.com/2011/02/geoengineering-set-to-change-life-on-earth/).

  2. March 4, 2011 10:09 AM

    Can I quote you on this? Greetings from Salisbury!

  3. March 9, 2011 5:49 PM

    Patrice,
    Most definately. Go right ahead.
    Barry

  4. March 15, 2011 6:33 PM

    I do love the way you have presented this particular matter plus it really does supply me a lot of fodder for consideration. Nonetheless, because of what precisely I have observed, I only hope as the actual remarks pack on that folks stay on point and not get started upon a soap box associated with some other news of the day. Still, thank you for this outstanding piece and whilst I can not really concur with the idea in totality, I regard your viewpoint.

Trackbacks

  1. advanced technology, human civilization, building stones, revolution 13, triple bottom, planet energy, human society, facilitation, Energy, Planet | nuclear power stations
  2. Disasters, Famine, Fire, Flood, These | nuclearwar2011.com

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: