Why are climate scientists losing the American public?

Washington Post ^ | 3/14/2010 | Stephen Stromberg

[ricks_place]

Even as predictions about the possible effects of climate change get more troubling by the day, Americans are increasingly skeptical of the science. The latest evidence is this concerning Gallup poll:

A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming's effects have already begun or will begin shortly.

Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).

The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.

Depressing news for environmentalists, who have spent years building the public case for concern.

Environmental groups often explain why they are losing the public relations war by, among other things, citing George Will’s “campaign” against global warming and other such efforts, arguing that they have made the science seem less settled than it is. Americans are having trouble telling the difference between relatively small criticisms of the science or scientists -- minor mistakes in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report or the release of overheated private exchanges among a few climate scientists, for example -- and the solid case for the bottom-line on global warming: that it’s extremely likely it’s happening, it’s extremely likely that it’s at least partially our fault, and, if unabated, it’s extremely likely to have some rather unpleasant consequences.

But a big factor is also that the issue became more partisan as the Democratic Congress got serious about legislating.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Americans are having trouble telling the difference between "relatively small criticisms" of the science or scientists -- minor mistakes in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report or the release of overheated private exchanges among a few climate scientists, for example -- and "the solid case" for the bottom-line on global warming: that it’s extremely likely it’s happening, it’s extremely likely that it’s at least partially our fault, and, if unabated, it’s extremely likely to have some rather unpleasant consequences.

This, from the same kind of people who were certain on the basis of no credible evidence at all that the Duke Lacrosse Team had committed a gang-rape of Crystal Mangum.

People who wouldn't know "solid evidence" if it reached up and bit them.

[mo]

this cr%* is spewed by the same people shrieking for “health care reform”...IOW...the potentially UNEMPLOYED Federal bureaucrats who will hit the streets unless they can figure out a way to extract more cash from the turnips in flyover country.

[FreePaul]

Why are climate scientists losing the American public?

Because the term "climate scientists" now means the same as snake oil salesman, used car salesman, etc. There hasn't been a "climate scientist" advocating the disaster of global warming who hasn't been unmasked as a charlatan or a fool. Is the American public more aware of this than others? Maybe. At least they are exposed to opposing views by a few reputable media and the internet.

[Yardstick]

The “minor” mistakes by the Panel point to the likelihood of more serious mistakes and manipulation. We’ve noticed that whenever they make a mistake, it invariably is in the direction of indicating more warming. We’re very aware of the case made by dissenting scientists who say there are major mistakes. This Stromberg guy, in typical liberal fashion, misunderstands our skepticism and in the most condescending way.

[TruthWillWin]

Depressing news for environmentalists, who have spent years building the committing fraud building the public case for concern.

Fixed.

[GBA]

A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years.

That poll is a measure of the effectiveness of media propaganda efforts on American gullibility and, to some degree, how well the Dept. of Education does it's job. That the percentage is falling shows Americans can overcome both obstacles.

We succeed in spite of what the government does to us and the obstacles they place in our way. Imagine how great we could become and how much we would offer to the world if the Dept. of Education actually taught science, math, critical thinking, etc. and then government simply got out of the way!

[Yardstick]

...and, if unabated, it’s extremely likely to have some rather unpleasant consequences.

How about the unpleasant consequences of turning the economy upside down in order to "combat climate change"? Do we even know that the proposed fixes will be effective? What if the cure is worse than the disease? Why don't the warmists ever ask these questions?

[norwaypinesavage]

"Depressing news for environmentalists, who have spent years building the public case for concern."

Most sentences usually have a verb in them. I guess his writing ability isn't any better than his understanding of science.

[Uncledave]

Jim, you’re correct of course — but the issue of what the populace thinks about it is vitally important; without public support the politicians can’t get their grubby hands on controlling and taxing energy.

[jimpick]

I agree with all that you said. My point was that in order to be taken seriously the global warming crowd should not be picking one country over another to enforce their regulations in. By forcing one country and not another it just proves that they don't believe it is serious enough to enforce. Some thing other than the protection of the planet is at work.

Besides I believe that global warming is a good thing.

[jimpick]

Al Gore invented the snow shovel. Duhhhhh!!!

[SuziQ]

Supposedly free-market Republicans favor supporting a few select energy sources instead of simply pricing carbon.

"Pricing carbon" is NOT a free market solution. It's a government imposed solution to a made up 'problem' that was put forth by folks with an agenda; to control the actions of the world's population by controlling the energy they use to get things done.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Question: "Why are climate scientists losing the American public?"

Answer: Because they have been shown to be a bunch of politicised liars and frauds.

[RJL]

Why are climate scientists losing the American public?

That's a tough one Stephen, perhaps the obvious fact that they've been lying to us all along while trying to steal $Trillions from the taxpayers.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Of course global warming is happening. It has been happening, naturally, for at least 16,000 years when most of the land mass of North America was covered by glaciers.

So why are the warming alarmists losing the public?

Lack of transparency
Getting caught manipulating data
Refusing to share data
Savagely attacking critics
Refusing to acknowledge any natural warming whatsoever
Lying about past historical facts like the Medieval Warm Period

There are a dozen reasons why their exposed lies are no longer working on the American public.

[thulldud]

Another perfect example of a data point for my tagline.

And here I was thinking that your tagline was like 44% of all statistics — made up on the spot!

You, sir, will be among the first against the wall when our socialist overlords complete their takeover.

[RipSawyer]

“Why are climate scientists considered scientists?”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Because SOME are real scientists. Here is a prime example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

[RipSawyer]

According to Ayn Rand the words, “Free scientific inquiry” constitute a redundancy and the words, “Governmental scientific inquiry” constitute a contradiction in terms or an oxymoron.