Paris Deal Collapse
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
Almost 90% of Americans don’t know there’s scientific consensus on global warming
May 18 to June 6 of this year, and the results have an average margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Why is perception of scientific consensus so important? Turns out that it’s actually a “gateway belief” to support for public action on climate change, according to a study from 2015 cited in the report. In other words, the more one perceives there to be a scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change, the more likely they are to believe that it is real and worrisome. And the more one believes that human-caused climate change is real and worrisome, the more likely one is to support public action on the issue.
Now, it seems this particular finding from the report has remained pretty consistent with past surveys, which means the Trump administration hasn’t dramatically impacted the public’s understanding of the consensus.
While the administration refuses to clarify whether the president thinks climate change is real, widely overstates uncertainty about climate change, and is reportedly planning "red team, blue team" exercises to evaluate climate science, it “hasn’t specifically gone after the consensus as a fact,” Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Communication and one of the study authors, said. But the Trump administration does seem to intend to “perpetuate the myth that there is no scientific consensus,” his co-author, Edward Maibach at George Mason, told me.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/6/15924444/global-warming-consensus-survey
May 18 to June 6 of this year, and the results have an average margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Why is perception of scientific consensus so important? Turns out that it’s actually a “gateway belief” to support for public action on climate change, according to a study from 2015 cited in the report. In other words, the more one perceives there to be a scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change, the more likely they are to believe that it is real and worrisome. And the more one believes that human-caused climate change is real and worrisome, the more likely one is to support public action on the issue.
Now, it seems this particular finding from the report has remained pretty consistent with past surveys, which means the Trump administration hasn’t dramatically impacted the public’s understanding of the consensus.
While the administration refuses to clarify whether the president thinks climate change is real, widely overstates uncertainty about climate change, and is reportedly planning "red team, blue team" exercises to evaluate climate science, it “hasn’t specifically gone after the consensus as a fact,” Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Communication and one of the study authors, said. But the Trump administration does seem to intend to “perpetuate the myth that there is no scientific consensus,” his co-author, Edward Maibach at George Mason, told me.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/6/15924444/global-warming-consensus-survey
Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues
...it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.
Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.”
As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it.
And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.
it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication. Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers.
First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.”
As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change.
But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy.
In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/art...-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many
(note: Micheal Mann is the hockey stick guy who wont show his evidence. Ball is Canada's first climate PHD)
Court Battle: Michael Mann Losing, Gives Tim Ball ‘Concessions’
In a week when mainstream fake news outlets try to sell him as the ‘World-leading climate change scientist’ Professor Michael Mann (above image: left) concedes legal ground in major court case about his alleged climate data fraud.
After the news leaked out defendant in the case, Dr Tim Ball (above image: right) told colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI):
“What my lawyers did was demand a series of concessions, all of which were agreed. I can’t discuss the details but, under the circumstances, it is a good outcome.”
The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver was where “world-leading” American professor, Michael E Mann was supposed to start his libel trial against retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball – until this crucial retreat. Such a delay – to possibly extend the case into an eight-year epic – plays into the hands of skeptics who early on dismissed Mann’s gambit as a cynical strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) to silence dissent
http://principia-scientific.org/bre...fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/
...it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.
Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.”
As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it.
And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.
it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication. Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers.
First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.”
As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change.
But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy.
In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/art...-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many
(note: Micheal Mann is the hockey stick guy who wont show his evidence. Ball is Canada's first climate PHD)
Court Battle: Michael Mann Losing, Gives Tim Ball ‘Concessions’
In a week when mainstream fake news outlets try to sell him as the ‘World-leading climate change scientist’ Professor Michael Mann (above image: left) concedes legal ground in major court case about his alleged climate data fraud.
After the news leaked out defendant in the case, Dr Tim Ball (above image: right) told colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI):
“What my lawyers did was demand a series of concessions, all of which were agreed. I can’t discuss the details but, under the circumstances, it is a good outcome.”
The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver was where “world-leading” American professor, Michael E Mann was supposed to start his libel trial against retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball – until this crucial retreat. Such a delay – to possibly extend the case into an eight-year epic – plays into the hands of skeptics who early on dismissed Mann’s gambit as a cynical strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) to silence dissent
http://principia-scientific.org/bre...fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/
Last edited:
It's only funny because Mair is attempting to explain science to a moron. And an unpleasant moron at that.
This is science, not the nonsense that Cruz is spouting.
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
They elected Obama twice, I'd say they didn't. And Hillary sure as hell wasn't bringing hope and change with her, not that Obama did either, really.
There is no consensus. 97% of 33% is NOT a consensus.
Corrected for accuracy.
The SLAPP lawsuit Michael Mann just lost to Tim Ball, Canada's senior climate PHD has just PROVEN in court that the MMG warming data was faked.
Report: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann – ‘Commits contempt of court’
Report: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael
So in other words, IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that YOU are "full of it" in court.
( As has Tay's climate consensus)
Enjoy the burn of global cooling.
Report: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann – ‘Commits contempt of court’
Report: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael
So in other words, IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that YOU are "full of it" in court.
( As has Tay's climate consensus)
Enjoy the burn of global cooling.
The SLAPP lawsuit Michael Mann just lost to Tim Ball, Canada's senior climate PHD has just PROVEN in court that the MMG warming data was faked.
Report: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann – ‘Commits contempt of court’
Report: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael
So in other words, IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that YOU are "full of it" in court.
( As has Tay's climate consensus)
Enjoy the burn of global cooling.
That is a confusing post, but completely in line with your usual comments.
How will we meet our Paris commitments? Nobody has a clue.
Let’s be clear, here: What Canada promised to do in Paris simply isn’t possible right now, given what the provinces themselves have suggested in their carbon emissions outlooks to 2030. Western Canada plans to remain flat at best. That means Eastern Canada would have to reduce its emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 to meet the Paris target. Not happening.
Told ya!
Let’s be clear, here: What Canada promised to do in Paris simply isn’t possible right now, given what the provinces themselves have suggested in their carbon emissions outlooks to 2030. Western Canada plans to remain flat at best. That means Eastern Canada would have to reduce its emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 to meet the Paris target. Not happening.
Told ya!
He a hero of yours?? I consider him a fuktard for selling out his fellow Jews to the Nazis in WWII. Bad enough but then he laughs about it.
[youtube]tMfcm6SQKqo[/youtube]
Soros: The Nazi Collaborator Who Sold Out Jews To Survive
