"97% of Climate Scientists Agree Climate Change is Real." YET . . . .

[metis]

The real question here, if 53% don't believe that this supposed "Climate Change" is caused by humans, then why are Democrats and tree-huggers so damned gullible?

Maybe because they're not so foolish so as to believe right-wing politicians over climate scientists, the latter of which devote much of their life studying this?

 

[Father Heathen]

Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing for Republicans, isn't it..

Being embarrassed would require having a sense of shame.

 

[Skwim]

Reducing pollution means increasing expenses, so the industries lobby politicians to fight legislation that would curtail emissions. These politicians in turn convince their dopey constituents that it's all just some vast, convoluted conspiracy (but how do they get the entire international scientific community to collaborate on a hoax that nobody has anything to gain from? But of course yokels don't bother themselves with such questions.) Their voter base tends to be religious and thus scientifically illiterate; i.e. evolution deniers and climate change deniers are cut from the same cloth.

Excellent! reply.

Being embarrassed would require having a sense of shame.

Boy, you're right on top of it today, aren't you.

.

 

[Shiranui117]

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?

I think it's mainly down to a lack of scientific understanding. It's been known for a while thanks to other studies that Republicans on average have lower levels of education. This likely also equates to a poorer understanding of ecology, paleontology and climatology. Once you understand the factors that contribute to the raising and lowering of global temperatures, you also understand how humans fit into that equation in the modern age.

I will note that it seems that more religious folk as a percentage of their population believe in human-caused climate change than Republicans as a percentage of their population. For the deniers of climate change among religious folk... Creationists already insist on saying that everything science tells us about the world around us is a fake conspiracy seeded by Satan and the evil atheists anyway, so denying climate change is just one more thing to add onto that pile.

 

[BSM1]

Those democrats and "tree-huggers" agree with the 97% of climate scientists, so wouldn't the gullible ones be the 47% who don't believe?

Please cite one of those scientists by name who have appeared on any valid media with proof positive to support your position (surely with a 97% consensus there's at least one).

 

[BSM1]

You will have to forgive them. You see, they tend to recognize and put stock into subject matter experts. Getting those experts to agree is a bit tough. So when you have one of those rare times when those experts have an overwhelming majority saying "Yeah, we should look into this", they take it a face value to investigate. In comparison to the alternative which is basically... "NU-UHHH!"

If we're being completely honest those groups indulge in motivated reasoning too. Partisanship.

However, the science stacks up completely in favour of those with the tree-hugging bias.

Please refer to post #25...

 

[BSM1]

Maybe because they're not so foolish so as to believe right-wing politicians over climate scientists, the latter of which devote much of their life studying this?

Please refer to post #25...

 

[shmogie]

"The most recent report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the leading international body for the assessment of climate change — concludes that 100% of all warming experienced since 1950 is due to human activity. Multiple studies also show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by human activity.

Retorting [sic] to authority does not prove that climate change itself is real but this consensus is actually based on peer-reviewed published, verifiable science. If anything, the fact that thousands of professionals and experts in their field agree in such a staggering majority that climate change is real should make any person of another opinion think twice, at the very least. After all, the vast majority of doctors agree that smoking causes cancer — this is an undisputed scientific fact — and the public seems to be fully aware of this and trusts the consensus.

So then why is the public in the United States so divided on the issue?

According to a 2017 Yale study, only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence by human hand.
First, the 97% of scientist statement is false. Was the view of every scientist ( 100 %) solicited and recorded
The country’s President, for instance, is one of the most outspoken climate change denialists, saying that“the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” and later that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” According to a list compiled by Vox, Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times (as of June 2017). Last week, on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’, Donald Trump — who claims to have “a natural instinct for science” — had this to say:
source​

So is it surprising that Trump is so block-headed? Not really. After all he is his own best source for information on everything. But also, he is a Republican, and Republicans are noted for their denial of climate change.

Also of interest is how climate change sits among religious folk.

source
​

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?

.

.

First, your statement about 97% of scientists is flat out false. Is EVERY (100%) scientist on record on this matter ? How about 97% of all, each and every scientist, are they on record. Absolutely not.

Second, of that bogus 97%, how many have any credentials to give an opinion any better than mine ?

The title ¨scientist¨ does not imbue special knowledge for any having that title on the matter if they aren´t specially trained in the area. A physicist is a scientist, but that doesn´t make his view of climate change more valuable if his entire specialty is quantum physics.

Few deny that the climate is changing. Climatologist and those who work directly or indirectly in climate related fields postulate different causes, the most popular now is increased co2. OK

Some people calmly consider things. They consider whether a theory can be reasonably proven to be the cause of climate change. These people aren´t stupid, they know that climate change has existed throughout the earths history, they know it is cyclical and recurring, a natural phenomena.

If humanity is partially responsible for an increased rate of climate change, allegedly by increased co2 and other gas emissions, they do not want to do something just to do something. Humanity must survive, is it better to adapt as humans always have, or destroy civilization by the expenditure of resources trying to change the weather, to the point of collapse ?

Political identification so closely to the clamor for action and resources taints the theories of climate change. Nancy Pelosi says unless something is done the world will burn up. Nancy Pelosi says if X is elected, America will be destroyed. It is clumped with hyperbolic political rhetoric that has no basis in fact.

Why not pose this questions, ¨ why do so many liberal atheists keep saying the end is near, yet they are unable to convince those not of the same political and religious view that it is ? Is it the message, or the messenger that is at fault ?¨ Maybe at this stage, millions upon millions are astute enough to know that for every theory provided by someone who actually has the credentials to postulate one, a different theory can be found by someone as well qualified.

Perhaps they want to be sure that the causes of climate change are clearly identified, they want to be sure that humans should or could stop it, and they don´t want to panic with knee jerk reactions running off in the wrong direction.

There are some who flat out don´t believe the ¨scientists´. They do not consider them to be anything close to accurate based upon various wrong predictions of the past

 

[Kenny]

"The most recent report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the leading international body for the assessment of climate change — concludes that 100% of all warming experienced since 1950 is due to human activity. Multiple studies also show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by human activity.

Retorting [sic] to authority does not prove that climate change itself is real but this consensus is actually based on peer-reviewed published, verifiable science. If anything, the fact that thousands of professionals and experts in their field agree in such a staggering majority that climate change is real should make any person of another opinion think twice, at the very least. After all, the vast majority of doctors agree that smoking causes cancer — this is an undisputed scientific fact — and the public seems to be fully aware of this and trusts the consensus.

So then why is the public in the United States so divided on the issue?

According to a 2017 Yale study, only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence by human hand.

The country’s President, for instance, is one of the most outspoken climate change denialists, saying that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” and later that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” According to a list compiled by Vox, Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times (as of June 2017). Last week, on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’, Donald Trump — who claims to have “a natural instinct for science” — had this to say:
source​

So is it surprising that Trump is so block-headed? Not really. After all he is his own best source for information on everything. But also, he is a Republican, and Republicans are noted for their denial of climate change.

Also of interest is how climate change sits among religious folk.

source
​

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?

.

.

This is a great example of manipulating information.

To wit:

That no matter which is one's party-line, the majority agrees that there is climate change.

"So is it surprising that Trump is so block-headed? " - obvious bias - so one wonders exactly is this really about.

If the extreme 57/33 with about 10% undecided, then the other end would be also classified as a possible extreme 80/8 with about 12% undecided....

Which of the two is more extreme in their viewpoint?

Usually you lob off the extremes.

I would land on an in-between of "yes, there is global warming" (as history proves that it happens). Yes, man can make a local difference. No, the general "global warming" is not mainly man created.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

 

[Skwim]

This is a great example of manipulating information.

To wit:

That no matter which is one's party-line, the majority agrees that there is climate change.

Nope, it doesn't at all. Using the graph, if one takes the Slightly Republican percentage ("Yes"= 54%) and the Very Republican percentage ("Yes" =38%) they average out to 46%. So, 46% of the Republicans could be said to believe climate change is occurring. Whereas, taking the Very Democrat percentage ("Yes" =86%) and Slightly Democratic percentage ("Yes" = 84%) they average out to 85%. So 85% of the Democrats could be said to believe climate change is occurring.

That's 85% Vs 46% which is hardly the case where "no matter which is one's party-line, the majority agrees that there is climate change."

"So is it surprising that Trump is so block-headed? " - obvious bias - so one wonders exactly is this really about.

And you're actually saying Trump isn't a blockhead? Here's a guy "who claims to have 'a natural instinct for science'” yet believe that vaccines cause autism.
source

If the extreme 57/33 with about 10% undecided, then the other end would be also classified as a possible extreme 80/8 with about 12% undecided....

Which of the two is more extreme in their viewpoint?

Usually you lob off the extremes.

I would land on an in-between of "yes, there is global warming" (as history proves that it happens). Yes, man can make a local difference. No, the general "global warming" is not mainly man created.

?????

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

View attachment 25103

Ever look into the author of this 15 year-old silliness, Monte Hieb? I did.

"Monte Hieb, sometime West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety chief engineer, can scarcely be accused of neutrality in the Climate Wars. Deservedly celebrated for his web site on the fossils of the coal measures of Appalachia, the amateur climate scientist has created a truly remarkable graph for The National Center for Policy Analysis "Global Warming Primer".

Coal enthusiasts may have a case to make, but Hieb's peculiar history of palaeoclimate seems an improbable tool for recruiting scientists to the fossil fuel cause-- it rivals the Creation Museum's take on geochronology.

Hieb's Kindergarten approach to radiative forcing by water vapor had atmospheric science professionals laughing long before he tried his hand at finger painting palaeoclimate . The Primer's cut and paste counterfeits of curves generated by mathematical models are all too reminiscent of the statistical shenanigans that led to the 'Hockey Stick' affair being denounced by Center chairman Pete DuPont in his Wall Street Journal column.

The Primer asks "Is there a relationship between CO2 and global temperature over the Earth's history ?" but the graphic answer provided its rhetorical question wildly exaggerates some extremes of palaeoclimate while ignoring the climate record of today. Yet Dallas's NCPA deserves the thanks of all Texans-- The Global Warming Primer may temporarily drive Aggie jokes out of circulation.

This harsh judgment stems from the Primer's poor timing - the latest peer reviewed assessment of CO2 past by palaeoclimatologists who respect the data instead of playing statistical games with it appeared on the same day as Hieb's latest ,and most Orwellian, attempt to rewrite geological history :
source

.

.​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The real question here, if 53% don't believe that this supposed "Climate Change" is caused by humans, then why are Democrats and tree-huggers so damned gullible?

The question is not well formed, and reveals a very serious bias, along with an extraneous dysphemism designed to denigrate those actually concerned with what we humans might be doing to our planet.

Well done...very few people get so much negativity into such a short space.

 

[sayak83]

"The most recent report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the leading international body for the assessment of climate change — concludes that 100% of all warming experienced since 1950 is due to human activity. Multiple studies also show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by human activity.

Retorting [sic] to authority does not prove that climate change itself is real but this consensus is actually based on peer-reviewed published, verifiable science. If anything, the fact that thousands of professionals and experts in their field agree in such a staggering majority that climate change is real should make any person of another opinion think twice, at the very least. After all, the vast majority of doctors agree that smoking causes cancer — this is an undisputed scientific fact — and the public seems to be fully aware of this and trusts the consensus.

So then why is the public in the United States so divided on the issue?

According to a 2017 Yale study, only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence by human hand.

The country’s President, for instance, is one of the most outspoken climate change denialists, saying that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” and later that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” According to a list compiled by Vox, Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times (as of June 2017). Last week, on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’, Donald Trump — who claims to have “a natural instinct for science” — had this to say:
source​

So is it surprising that Trump is so block-headed? Not really. After all he is his own best source for information on everything. But also, he is a Republican, and Republicans are noted for their denial of climate change.

Also of interest is how climate change sits among religious folk.

source
​

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?

.

.

I think that Republicans believe that an unstable climate will be good for business. They will mine the Arctic and Greenland, and stake claim for Antarctic when it goes ice free.

 

[Stevicus]

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?
.

Well, it could be that the religious folk believe that God controls the weather and climate. Maybe He's getting us all heated up in preparation for Judgment Day. Nothing that we sinners can do about it, except repent.

Seriously, though, I think one of the key reasons why there's such denial may also be due to cynicism. After all, we all use these products and machines which lead to carbon emissions - and people don't really want to make the sacrifices necessary to reduce these emissions which lead to climate change.

 

[shunyadragon]

The real question here, if 53% don't believe that this supposed "Climate Change" is caused by humans, then why are Democrats and tree-huggers so damned gullible?

The reality of Global Climate Change is not a popularity contest among Creationist evangelicals, flat earthers, and the deliberately uneducated.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Evangelical Christians believe that any climate change is God's will, and not human or other causes.

 

[Bear Wild]

"The most recent report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the leading international body for the assessment of climate change — concludes that 100% of all warming experienced since 1950 is due to human activity. Multiple studies also show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by human activity.

Retorting [sic] to authority does not prove that climate change itself is real but this consensus is actually based on peer-reviewed published, verifiable science. If anything, the fact that thousands of professionals and experts in their field agree in such a staggering majority that climate change is real should make any person of another opinion think twice, at the very least. After all, the vast majority of doctors agree that smoking causes cancer — this is an undisputed scientific fact — and the public seems to be fully aware of this and trusts the consensus.

So then why is the public in the United States so divided on the issue?

According to a 2017 Yale study, only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence by human hand.

The country’s President, for instance, is one of the most outspoken climate change denialists, saying that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” and later that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” According to a list compiled by Vox, Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times (as of June 2017). Last week, on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’, Donald Trump — who claims to have “a natural instinct for science” — had this to say:
source​

So is it surprising that Trump is so block-headed? Not really. After all he is his own best source for information on everything. But also, he is a Republican, and Republicans are noted for their denial of climate change.

Also of interest is how climate change sits among religious folk.

source
​

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?

.

.

I read the IPCC report and it is a conservative projection yet shows undeniably we are heading for disaster. Interesting in Texas there is a Senate race where the republican representative states their is no Climate warming from what scientists have told him. Ted Cruz has been told by his scientist that there is no global warming. The earth has been hotter in the past so therefor we are cooler now thus no global warming. Of course he is supported intensely by the oil and gas industry.

 

[Kenny]

Ever look into the author of this 15 year-old silliness, Monte Hieb? I did.

"Monte Hieb, sometime West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety chief engineer, can scarcely be accused of neutrality in the Climate Wars. Deservedly celebrated for his web site on the fossils of the coal measures of Appalachia, the amateur climate scientist has created a truly remarkable graph for The National Center for Policy Analysis "Global Warming Primer".

You fail to note that no matter who he is, he is quoting empirical and verifiable evidence

 

[metis]

Please refer to post #25...

Here's from NASA: Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Here's from the Royal Society: Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society

Here's from Britannica: climate change | Causes, Effects, & Facts

Here's from Wikipedia that includes links to studies: Climate change - Wikipedia

You also might want to check out the NOAA, Scientific American, National Geographic, NAS, and other scientific websites.

Now, which sources do you use?

 

[shunyadragon]

You fail to note that no matter who he is, he is quoting empirical and verifiable evidence

Actually no, he is selective about what evidence (?) he chooses to use, based on a coal industry agenda. I know him, and attended some of his talks in West Virginia concerning Coal geology, in that field he is excellent, and I worked in coal reclamation of old mine waste piles he helped with, but no it does matter who he is and what he is basing his climate model on. Note the article clearly stated he is a Coal Engineer, and an 'amateur climatologist.' He does not even have the background I have in climate science, and his agenda is to support the coal industry.

 

[Yerda]

Please cite one of those scientists by name who have appeared on any valid media with proof positive to support your position (surely with a 97% consensus there's at least one).

Please refer to post #25...

This doesn't make sense in relation to what I posted. Can you clarify what it is you want me to do?