CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world.


Climate Change flood sky

Published on February 26th, 2010 | by Zachary Shahan

42

Climate Change: What Percentage of Scientists, Climate Scientists and the General Public Believe in It?



Climate change or global weirding is the number one environmental issue guiding clean tech these days. Although we generally write on clean tech itself, rather than climate change, from time to time (due to the continual efforts of climate change deniers or disinformers to sway the media and the public) we occasionally put something on here regarding climate change itself.

[social_buttons]

One issue that keeps arising lately is if scientists outside of a small, conspiring group of money-driven climate scientists really trust the science of climate change. Of course, this is a bit of a ridiculous concern. The overarching National Academy of Sciences has already validated key climate change research and findings after thorough, independent analysis. The Union of Concerned Scientists, which consists of about 250,000 members, has been coming out very strongly saying that we need to get serious and address this true, proven issue of climate change. And, very recently, a panel of truly world-leading, eminent scientists from the US and Europe have confirmed “the widespread scientific consensus that the Earth’s climate is warming due to human activities.”

Nonetheless, I just ran across a couple of polls (Gallup and Pew) that include the different views of scientists, climate scientists and the general public regarding climate change and it seemed like something worth writing about. It is clear that the public are fairly torn on the most critical climate change topics these days (i.e. if climate change is occurring, if it is man-made, if it is a serious concern), despite the fact that the experts are quite convinced of these things and they are, well,… the experts.

I read about climate change on a variety of sites everyday. With all the issues there are to address, it is a real shame that we still have to fight this part of the battle. The bottom line, shown below, is that those trained in scientific analysis and research, and especially those trained in scientific analysis and research of the climate, are much more concerned about climate change than the general public and much more adamant that we need to do something about it now.

The chart above, from the Pew Research Center, shows clear differences in perception between scientists and the public. According to its survey, 49% of the public believe that global warming is due to human activity, whereas 84% of all scientists do.

Another similar poll by Gallup from January of last year found that 77% of non-publishing, non-climatological Earth Scientists and 97% of publishing Climatologists believed in human-driven climate change.

Supporters of dirty coal and oil will continue to spread misinformation until they are dead, it seems, but the scientists are not being fooled. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same for the general public yet.

Image Credit: Yasin Hassan – ( ياسين حسن ) via flickr under a CC license

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , ,


About the Author

is the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular cleantech-focused website in the world, and Planetsave, a world-leading green and science news site. He has been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and he has been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, and wind energy for the past four years or so. Aside from his work on CleanTechnica and Planetsave, he's the Network Manager for their parent organization – Important Media – and he's the Owner/Founder of Solar Love, EV Obsession, and Bikocity. To connect with Zach on some of your favorite social networks, go to ZacharyShahan.com and click on the relevant buttons.



  • http://profiles.google.com/jesse.a.b Jessé Beaupré

    Scientists are cheap to buy those days…

  • rosemary

    I had no trouble finding and reading the PEW poll although I have been unable to find out much about the scientists they interviewed other than ages, beliefs, and employment status. I’d rather see their credentials, actually. BUT the point is, when I tried to check the Gallup Poll reference I find you were citing another source, News Junkie Post, which also did not link to or give enough details for me to find and read that report. I went to the Gallup website and ran a search but July 8, 2009 was the closest I could find and I didn’t find the statistics cited. Better references, please.

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    Rajit,

    First of all, I’m sorry that all of your comments were not approved immediately. Our internal system has just changed and everything does not work like it used to.

    It seems that comments with links sometimes get sent to spam automatically. I had this happen with my own comment & it took me awhile to figure out what was happening!

    I just fished your comments out of spam & will try to keep my eye on that as well as “pending” comments.

    In response to the CRU and GISS data being wrong: The data used from CRU, GISS, NASA, NOAA and others has been found to be quite accurate. If anything, CRU data underestimates climate change! So, it is really a moot point from that angle.

    Secondly, the link you provide (in that comment) does not undermine the science of climate change at all. It discusses how climate experts should communicate and deal with climate skeptics (including those who are just trying to jam up the wheels of progress by repeating the same claims over and over no matter how many times they are refuted). It is one perspective, but still does not undermine the science (and the fact that this science has gone through extensive independent review because of the political and cultural backlash to it).

    The scientific community heavily supports what climate scientists have found and what methods they are using. Continued improvement is welcome, but the key findings (that accelerated climate change is happening and it is human-induced) need to be addressed in the real world now.

    If people cannot accept the science, they will have to accept the droughts, floods, extreme storms, widespread agricultural challenges, and increase of diseases that are more than likely to occur.

    I will keep an eye on the comments of this post for awhile longer, but cannot do a back & forth on every article I’ve ever written continually — and cannot even view all of the comments. If you want to learn more about climate change, get into the scientific discussion on it. Your views will quickly change on where our attention (most people’s) needs to be put if you do — on addressing the issue not debating if 97% of climate scientists are right or wrong.

    Thank You

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    Rajit,

    First of all, I’m sorry that all of your comments were not approved immediately. Our internal system has just changed and everything does not work like it used to.

    It seems that comments with links sometimes get sent to spam automatically. I had this happen with my own comment & it took me awhile to figure out what was happening!

    I just fished your comments out of spam & will try to keep my eye on that as well as “pending” comments.

    In response to the CRU and GISS data being wrong: The data used from CRU, GISS, NASA, NOAA and others has been found to be quite accurate. If anything, CRU data underestimates climate change! So, it is really a moot point from that angle.

    Secondly, the link you provide (in that comment) does not undermine the science of climate change at all. It discusses how climate experts should communicate and deal with climate skeptics (including those who are just trying to jam up the wheels of progress by repeating the same claims over and over no matter how many times they are refuted). It is one perspective, but still does not undermine the science (and the fact that this science has gone through extensive independent review because of the political and cultural backlash to it).

    The scientific community heavily supports what climate scientists have found and what methods they are using. Continued improvement is welcome, but the key findings (that accelerated climate change is happening and it is human-induced) need to be addressed in the real world now.

    If people cannot accept the science, they will have to accept the droughts, floods, extreme storms, widespread agricultural challenges, and increase of diseases that are more than likely to occur.

    I will keep an eye on the comments of this post for awhile longer, but cannot do a back & forth on every article I’ve ever written continually — and cannot even view all of the comments. If you want to learn more about climate change, get into the scientific discussion on it. Your views will quickly change on where our attention (most people’s) needs to be put if you do — on addressing the issue not debating if 97% of climate scientists are right or wrong.

    Thank You

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    Rajit,

    First of all, I’m sorry that all of your comments were not approved immediately. Our internal system has just changed and everything does not work like it used to.

    It seems that comments with links sometimes get sent to spam automatically. I had this happen with my own comment & it took me awhile to figure out what was happening!

    I just fished your comments out of spam & will try to keep my eye on that as well as “pending” comments.

    In response to the CRU and GISS data being wrong: The data used from CRU, GISS, NASA, NOAA and others has been found to be quite accurate. If anything, CRU data underestimates climate change! So, it is really a moot point from that angle.

    Secondly, the link you provide (in that comment) does not undermine the science of climate change at all. It discusses how climate experts should communicate and deal with climate skeptics (including those who are just trying to jam up the wheels of progress by repeating the same claims over and over no matter how many times they are refuted). It is one perspective, but still does not undermine the science (and the fact that this science has gone through extensive independent review because of the political and cultural backlash to it).

    The scientific community heavily supports what climate scientists have found and what methods they are using. Continued improvement is welcome, but the key findings (that accelerated climate change is happening and it is human-induced) need to be addressed in the real world now.

    If people cannot accept the science, they will have to accept the droughts, floods, extreme storms, widespread agricultural challenges, and increase of diseases that are more than likely to occur.

    I will keep an eye on the comments of this post for awhile longer, but cannot do a back & forth on every article I’ve ever written continually — and cannot even view all of the comments. If you want to learn more about climate change, get into the scientific discussion on it. Your views will quickly change on where our attention (most people’s) needs to be put if you do — on addressing the issue not debating if 97% of climate scientists are right or wrong.

    Thank You

  • Rajit Gandhi

    Thanks for fixing the link Zachary.

    However, I do have a few points: Why did you edit my post before that one? It had a link to a very important description of what unfolded at CRU, and how many scientists scientists feel about it.

    The link I posted is directly relevant to the discussion.

    Also, I think it would be important to acknowledge the fact that the institute of physics (comprised of 36,000 PhDs in physics) think there are serious problems with climate science as a whole, from peer review to data collection: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

    Is there a reason you are censoring my posts?

    The letter from my deleted post: http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/27/%C2%AD-climategate-judith-curry-open-letter-to-graduate-students-young-scientists-climate-research-hacked-cru-emails/

  • Rajit Gandhi

    Thanks for fixing the link Zachary.

    However, I do have a few points: Why did you edit my post before that one? It had a link to a very important description of what unfolded at CRU, and how many scientists scientists feel about it.

    The link I posted is directly relevant to the discussion.

    Also, I think it would be important to acknowledge the fact that the institute of physics (comprised of 36,000 PhDs in physics) think there are serious problems with climate science as a whole, from peer review to data collection: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

    Is there a reason you are censoring my posts?

    The letter from my deleted post: http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/27/%C2%AD-climategate-judith-curry-open-letter-to-graduate-students-young-scientists-climate-research-hacked-cru-emails/

  • Rajit Gandhi

    Thanks for fixing the link Zachary.

    However, I do have a few points: Why did you edit my post before that one? It had a link to a very important description of what unfolded at CRU, and how many scientists scientists feel about it.

    The link I posted is directly relevant to the discussion.

    Also, I think it would be important to acknowledge the fact that the institute of physics (comprised of 36,000 PhDs in physics) think there are serious problems with climate science as a whole, from peer review to data collection: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

    Is there a reason you are censoring my posts?

    The letter from my deleted post: http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/27/%C2%AD-climategate-judith-curry-open-letter-to-graduate-students-young-scientists-climate-research-hacked-cru-emails/

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    Paul & quixote, good points. Those provide a good response to Bruce’s comment, so I do not feel any need to add more right now.

    Rajit, good catch. Pew apparently has two press releases announcing that report. I changed it to the correct link. If you want to compare the difference in press releases, here you go:

    http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

    http://people-press.org/report/528/

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    Paul & quixote, good points. Those provide a good response to Bruce’s comment, so I do not feel any need to add more right now.

    Rajit, good catch. Pew apparently has two press releases announcing that report. I changed it to the correct link. If you want to compare the difference in press releases, here you go:

    http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

    http://people-press.org/report/528/

  • Rajit Gandhi

    BTW, I clicked the link to the Pew Study provided in your entry Zachary. But it has nothing to do with that graphic you posted. It’s an entirely different study.

    Did you just make that up? Where is the actual study that gives those numbers?

  • Rajit Gandhi

    BTW, I clicked the link to the Pew Study provided in your entry Zachary. But it has nothing to do with that graphic you posted. It’s an entirely different study.

    Did you just make that up? Where is the actual study that gives those numbers?

  • Rajit Gandhi

    BTW, I clicked the link to the Pew Study provided in your entry Zachary. But it has nothing to do with that graphic you posted. It’s an entirely different study.

    Did you just make that up? Where is the actual study that gives those numbers?

  • Rajit Gandhi

    What scares me most about this study is that 70% of ‘scientists’ believe that global warming is a ‘serious threat.’

    BTW I realize there’s a degree of ‘groupthink’ to be expected from this website, but you cannot ignore the fact that both the CRU and GISStemp datasets have glaring errors.

    Just because there’s an entire PR industry surrounding sloppy fad science, that doesn’t mean it should be granted automatic credibility.

    Have fun with your cognitive dissonance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

  • Rajit Gandhi

    What scares me most about this study is that 70% of ‘scientists’ believe that global warming is a ‘serious threat.’

    BTW I realize there’s a degree of ‘groupthink’ to be expected from this website, but you cannot ignore the fact that both the CRU and GISStemp datasets have glaring errors.

    Just because there’s an entire PR industry surrounding sloppy fad science, that doesn’t mean it should be granted automatic credibility.

    Have fun with your cognitive dissonance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

  • Rajit Gandhi

    What scares me most about this study is that 70% of ‘scientists’ believe that global warming is a ‘serious threat.’

    BTW I realize there’s a degree of ‘groupthink’ to be expected from this website, but you cannot ignore the fact that both the CRU and GISStemp datasets have glaring errors.

    Just because there’s an entire PR industry surrounding sloppy fad science, that doesn’t mean it should be granted automatic credibility.

    Have fun with your cognitive dissonance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

  • http://www.molvray.com/acid-test/ quixote

    As a biologist whose publications live or die by scientific rules of evidence, and who’s also had to deal with more than my share of departmental politics, I’d like to talk about those two things a bit.

    Papers are sent out for external review before publication. If you’re writing drivel, they won’t pass review no matter what your department’s politics are. The politics involve people being snooty about how significant your work is, not how true it is. The scientific rules of evidence set the bar so high that it’s possible to miss some truths, but next-to-impossible for most scientists in the field to show a finding is valid and yet have it be false.

    So the real kicker is that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS are in agreement about anthropogenic climate change. At those levels of consensus, there’s no hope that it’s all just departmental politics. We’re knackering the planet, and if you’re younger than 40, you’re probably guaranteed to suffer some serious effects.

    What scientists in general have to say is less important. I’ve known physicists who are creationists. (And as a biologist and science fiction fan, I’m convinced we’ll have faster than light travel some day :) .)

  • http://www.molvray.com/acid-test/ quixote

    As a biologist whose publications live or die by scientific rules of evidence, and who’s also had to deal with more than my share of departmental politics, I’d like to talk about those two things a bit.

    Papers are sent out for external review before publication. If you’re writing drivel, they won’t pass review no matter what your department’s politics are. The politics involve people being snooty about how significant your work is, not how true it is. The scientific rules of evidence set the bar so high that it’s possible to miss some truths, but next-to-impossible for most scientists in the field to show a finding is valid and yet have it be false.

    So the real kicker is that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS are in agreement about anthropogenic climate change. At those levels of consensus, there’s no hope that it’s all just departmental politics. We’re knackering the planet, and if you’re younger than 40, you’re probably guaranteed to suffer some serious effects.

    What scientists in general have to say is less important. I’ve known physicists who are creationists. (And as a biologist and science fiction fan, I’m convinced we’ll have faster than light travel some day :) .)

  • http://www.molvray.com/acid-test/ quixote

    As a biologist whose publications live or die by scientific rules of evidence, and who’s also had to deal with more than my share of departmental politics, I’d like to talk about those two things a bit.

    Papers are sent out for external review before publication. If you’re writing drivel, they won’t pass review no matter what your department’s politics are. The politics involve people being snooty about how significant your work is, not how true it is. The scientific rules of evidence set the bar so high that it’s possible to miss some truths, but next-to-impossible for most scientists in the field to show a finding is valid and yet have it be false.

    So the real kicker is that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS are in agreement about anthropogenic climate change. At those levels of consensus, there’s no hope that it’s all just departmental politics. We’re knackering the planet, and if you’re younger than 40, you’re probably guaranteed to suffer some serious effects.

    What scientists in general have to say is less important. I’ve known physicists who are creationists. (And as a biologist and science fiction fan, I’m convinced we’ll have faster than light travel some day :) .)

  • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer
  • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer
  • Paul

    P.S the professional skeptic lobby even had a disinformation line for the hottest average temperatures and record setting highs since record keeping started 200 years ago….

    Their misinformation propaganda says that the weather stations collecting the data are faulty.

    1) located in heat soak areas

    2) mounted next to equipment that radiate heat.

    Yep… every weather station on earth has coincidentally been moved to a heat soak location within the last 10 years. All part of the conspiracy.

    As ridiculous as it sounds, gullible, usually older generation, members of the general public lap this rubbish up. It supports their entrenched position that they don’t have to make ANY changes … because it’s not actually happening.

    I like the line… you’e either part of the solution or your part of the problem… pretty hard to argue that one.

  • Paul

    P.S the professional skeptic lobby even had a disinformation line for the hottest average temperatures and record setting highs since record keeping started 200 years ago….

    Their misinformation propaganda says that the weather stations collecting the data are faulty.

    1) located in heat soak areas

    2) mounted next to equipment that radiate heat.

    Yep… every weather station on earth has coincidentally been moved to a heat soak location within the last 10 years. All part of the conspiracy.

    As ridiculous as it sounds, gullible, usually older generation, members of the general public lap this rubbish up. It supports their entrenched position that they don’t have to make ANY changes … because it’s not actually happening.

    I like the line… you’e either part of the solution or your part of the problem… pretty hard to argue that one.

  • Paul

    P.S the professional skeptic lobby even had a disinformation line for the hottest average temperatures and record setting highs since record keeping started 200 years ago….

    Their misinformation propaganda says that the weather stations collecting the data are faulty.

    1) located in heat soak areas

    2) mounted next to equipment that radiate heat.

    Yep… every weather station on earth has coincidentally been moved to a heat soak location within the last 10 years. All part of the conspiracy.

    As ridiculous as it sounds, gullible, usually older generation, members of the general public lap this rubbish up. It supports their entrenched position that they don’t have to make ANY changes … because it’s not actually happening.

    I like the line… you’e either part of the solution or your part of the problem… pretty hard to argue that one.

  • Paul

    Simple explanation: The incumbents (Coal and Oil etc.) and their political and media allies have been very effective in spreading disinformation to a mostly brainless public.

    I read something from the UK recently (they’re still going on about Copenhagen as a national election is due)that said Global Warming was a political not scientific problem.

    It’s the denial of climate change that is political, the actual problem is a scientific fact… just look at the weather! These vested interests try and turn it into a government conspiracy on a par with some religious debate.

    Good example of the power of money to influence politicians and the media.

    FACT, starting in 2000 the hottest 10 years since record keeping started… that convinced me!

  • Paul

    Simple explanation: The incumbents (Coal and Oil etc.) and their political and media allies have been very effective in spreading disinformation to a mostly brainless public.

    I read something from the UK recently (they’re still going on about Copenhagen as a national election is due)that said Global Warming was a political not scientific problem.

    It’s the denial of climate change that is political, the actual problem is a scientific fact… just look at the weather! These vested interests try and turn it into a government conspiracy on a par with some religious debate.

    Good example of the power of money to influence politicians and the media.

    FACT, starting in 2000 the hottest 10 years since record keeping started… that convinced me!

  • Bruce

    Zach, it would be easier to buy into man made global warming if the scientific and academic community had better–really any–bias-correcting mechanisms. I live in a university town and have friends who inhabit the shoals of academia, and when I hear stories of political pressure within departments, or pressure to produce “mainstream” articles in the ‘publish or perish’ climate that rules science and academia, it becomes all too clear that career and status drive survival within these organizational hierarchies. If systems and individuals were present to protect those whose job is to protect diversity of thought and theory, to eliminate the the overriding need to achieve a tenured chair, or publish a PhD thesis, you would see unbiased global warming research designed to produce solid, long-term evidence affirming or refuting 1, global warming, and 2, man’s contribution to it. The leak in England proves this problem exists, and that so far, nobody is doing anything to change the “climate” that produces such bias. In the meantime, I don’t see you or others who should be more rigorously honest with the taxpayers who pay for the bulk of scientific endeavor. It’s time to come clean about the loose ends and lack of evidence behind MMGW, to admit the corruption at East Anglia and elsewhere. Until you are at least as honest and forthright as the head of Toyota, in the wake of their product problems, you cannot be bestowed the credibility you seek.

  • Bruce

    Zach, it would be easier to buy into man made global warming if the scientific and academic community had better–really any–bias-correcting mechanisms. I live in a university town and have friends who inhabit the shoals of academia, and when I hear stories of political pressure within departments, or pressure to produce “mainstream” articles in the ‘publish or perish’ climate that rules science and academia, it becomes all too clear that career and status drive survival within these organizational hierarchies. If systems and individuals were present to protect those whose job is to protect diversity of thought and theory, to eliminate the the overriding need to achieve a tenured chair, or publish a PhD thesis, you would see unbiased global warming research designed to produce solid, long-term evidence affirming or refuting 1, global warming, and 2, man’s contribution to it. The leak in England proves this problem exists, and that so far, nobody is doing anything to change the “climate” that produces such bias. In the meantime, I don’t see you or others who should be more rigorously honest with the taxpayers who pay for the bulk of scientific endeavor. It’s time to come clean about the loose ends and lack of evidence behind MMGW, to admit the corruption at East Anglia and elsewhere. Until you are at least as honest and forthright as the head of Toyota, in the wake of their product problems, you cannot be bestowed the credibility you seek.

  • Bruce

    Zach, it would be easier to buy into man made global warming if the scientific and academic community had better–really any–bias-correcting mechanisms. I live in a university town and have friends who inhabit the shoals of academia, and when I hear stories of political pressure within departments, or pressure to produce “mainstream” articles in the ‘publish or perish’ climate that rules science and academia, it becomes all too clear that career and status drive survival within these organizational hierarchies. If systems and individuals were present to protect those whose job is to protect diversity of thought and theory, to eliminate the the overriding need to achieve a tenured chair, or publish a PhD thesis, you would see unbiased global warming research designed to produce solid, long-term evidence affirming or refuting 1, global warming, and 2, man’s contribution to it. The leak in England proves this problem exists, and that so far, nobody is doing anything to change the “climate” that produces such bias. In the meantime, I don’t see you or others who should be more rigorously honest with the taxpayers who pay for the bulk of scientific endeavor. It’s time to come clean about the loose ends and lack of evidence behind MMGW, to admit the corruption at East Anglia and elsewhere. Until you are at least as honest and forthright as the head of Toyota, in the wake of their product problems, you cannot be bestowed the credibility you seek.

  • Mary Genoud

    Climate change and sustainability.

    Finate carbon energy resources: 2007 global consumption/reserves; January 1st, 2008: Petroleum-41 years, natural gas-63, Coal 147, but 40 years from now coal reserves will be concentrated basically in the US.

    Deniers should look at NASA for evidence of melting in polar caps and glacier regions, which represent the planet’s cooling system and fresh water suply.

  • Mary Genoud

    Climate change and sustainability.

    Finate carbon energy resources: 2007 global consumption/reserves; January 1st, 2008: Petroleum-41 years, natural gas-63, Coal 147, but 40 years from now coal reserves will be concentrated basically in the US.

    Deniers should look at NASA for evidence of melting in polar caps and glacier regions, which represent the planet’s cooling system and fresh water suply.

  • zach

    Roger,

    I’m sorry that you feel the science is based on belief and not sound science. The science is there. The reason people are so frustrated with deniers is because the evidence is clear, yet they still try to believe and convince others that the world is flat…. i mean, climate change or global warming or global weirding isn’t happening.

    The myth that these scientists said we were entering global cooling a few decades ago has been debunked already as well. I will find you a link, if you want it.

    Again, the idea that climate scientists have withheld evidence that could contradict their claims is also false, and has been confirmed false by several independent investigations now.

    I’m sorry this is such a difficult thing to accept. It was difficult for most everyone to accept, I think. But the longer we deny the reality, the worse the reality will be for our children and grandchildren and countless others.

    I don’t imagine any facts will change your opinion. Because they are all over the internet if you are interested in researching the issue in scientific detail (as many of the scientists who participated in the surveys above must have done).

    So, best of luck. And I can only wonder why you are reading this blog??? To enlighten the world by telling us things we could hear on Fox News?

  • zach

    Roger,

    I’m sorry that you feel the science is based on belief and not sound science. The science is there. The reason people are so frustrated with deniers is because the evidence is clear, yet they still try to believe and convince others that the world is flat…. i mean, climate change or global warming or global weirding isn’t happening.

    The myth that these scientists said we were entering global cooling a few decades ago has been debunked already as well. I will find you a link, if you want it.

    Again, the idea that climate scientists have withheld evidence that could contradict their claims is also false, and has been confirmed false by several independent investigations now.

    I’m sorry this is such a difficult thing to accept. It was difficult for most everyone to accept, I think. But the longer we deny the reality, the worse the reality will be for our children and grandchildren and countless others.

    I don’t imagine any facts will change your opinion. Because they are all over the internet if you are interested in researching the issue in scientific detail (as many of the scientists who participated in the surveys above must have done).

    So, best of luck. And I can only wonder why you are reading this blog??? To enlighten the world by telling us things we could hear on Fox News?

  • zach

    Roger,

    I’m sorry that you feel the science is based on belief and not sound science. The science is there. The reason people are so frustrated with deniers is because the evidence is clear, yet they still try to believe and convince others that the world is flat…. i mean, climate change or global warming or global weirding isn’t happening.

    The myth that these scientists said we were entering global cooling a few decades ago has been debunked already as well. I will find you a link, if you want it.

    Again, the idea that climate scientists have withheld evidence that could contradict their claims is also false, and has been confirmed false by several independent investigations now.

    I’m sorry this is such a difficult thing to accept. It was difficult for most everyone to accept, I think. But the longer we deny the reality, the worse the reality will be for our children and grandchildren and countless others.

    I don’t imagine any facts will change your opinion. Because they are all over the internet if you are interested in researching the issue in scientific detail (as many of the scientists who participated in the surveys above must have done).

    So, best of luck. And I can only wonder why you are reading this blog??? To enlighten the world by telling us things we could hear on Fox News?

  • Roger L

    Hey Zach: Why should we trust the so called scientist experts when these same types (and some of the same guys) said we were headed into global cooling in the 70s (which did not occur) and now its been shown that they have withheld evidence that might contradict their claims. Doom and gloom does not sell especially when its shown that some of the main sellers of the doom and gloom have such hard and large monetary investment in the outcome they propose (alla Al Gore and his investments). A simple note, when they said a few years ago that it was the warmest its been in 400 years some of us Scientific and non scientific types had a hard time corresponding human influence with said warmest time 400 years ago, a time before the industrial revolution. Global warming (now changed to climate change) comes off as more of a issue associated with faith and religion than anything. The issue is presented in its tone as religious in nature and those who disagree as evil and dumb. An issue of scientific nature is not presented as such. No wonder the public does not trust the so called presentation and absolute results.

  • Roger L

    Hey Zach: Why should we trust the so called scientist experts when these same types (and some of the same guys) said we were headed into global cooling in the 70s (which did not occur) and now its been shown that they have withheld evidence that might contradict their claims. Doom and gloom does not sell especially when its shown that some of the main sellers of the doom and gloom have such hard and large monetary investment in the outcome they propose (alla Al Gore and his investments). A simple note, when they said a few years ago that it was the warmest its been in 400 years some of us Scientific and non scientific types had a hard time corresponding human influence with said warmest time 400 years ago, a time before the industrial revolution. Global warming (now changed to climate change) comes off as more of a issue associated with faith and religion than anything. The issue is presented in its tone as religious in nature and those who disagree as evil and dumb. An issue of scientific nature is not presented as such. No wonder the public does not trust the so called presentation and absolute results.

  • Roger L

    Hey Zach: Why should we trust the so called scientist experts when these same types (and some of the same guys) said we were headed into global cooling in the 70s (which did not occur) and now its been shown that they have withheld evidence that might contradict their claims. Doom and gloom does not sell especially when its shown that some of the main sellers of the doom and gloom have such hard and large monetary investment in the outcome they propose (alla Al Gore and his investments). A simple note, when they said a few years ago that it was the warmest its been in 400 years some of us Scientific and non scientific types had a hard time corresponding human influence with said warmest time 400 years ago, a time before the industrial revolution. Global warming (now changed to climate change) comes off as more of a issue associated with faith and religion than anything. The issue is presented in its tone as religious in nature and those who disagree as evil and dumb. An issue of scientific nature is not presented as such. No wonder the public does not trust the so called presentation and absolute results.

  • Michael Rollins

    Why doesn’t the public more heavily believe in climate change? I think it’s because a lot of people don’t trust the liberal media, including myself, and the liberal media has taken the position that climate change is occurring. The liberal media has taken many faddish positions on a lot of issues like abortion, pacifism, feminism, sexuality, psychobabble, modern art, child discipline, legalization of narcotics and the position that litigation is virtuous regardless of the size of the award. The media doesn’t live in the real world and people see that and don’t trust the media, which happens to generally take the correct position that global warming is occurring and is a problem. However, I DO believe in climate change and the need for clean energy and alternative energy. Here is where I think the conservative media is misleading people by disproportionately citing examples of climate change proponents that appear to withhold evidence contrary to their positions. Why the media can’t just be moderate and objective, I don’t know.

  • Michael Rollins

    Why doesn’t the public more heavily believe in climate change? I think it’s because a lot of people don’t trust the liberal media, including myself, and the liberal media has taken the position that climate change is occurring. The liberal media has taken many faddish positions on a lot of issues like abortion, pacifism, feminism, sexuality, psychobabble, modern art, child discipline, legalization of narcotics and the position that litigation is virtuous regardless of the size of the award. The media doesn’t live in the real world and people see that and don’t trust the media, which happens to generally take the correct position that global warming is occurring and is a problem. However, I DO believe in climate change and the need for clean energy and alternative energy. Here is where I think the conservative media is misleading people by disproportionately citing examples of climate change proponents that appear to withhold evidence contrary to their positions. Why the media can’t just be moderate and objective, I don’t know.

  • Michael Rollins

    Why doesn’t the public more heavily believe in climate change? I think it’s because a lot of people don’t trust the liberal media, including myself, and the liberal media has taken the position that climate change is occurring. The liberal media has taken many faddish positions on a lot of issues like abortion, pacifism, feminism, sexuality, psychobabble, modern art, child discipline, legalization of narcotics and the position that litigation is virtuous regardless of the size of the award. The media doesn’t live in the real world and people see that and don’t trust the media, which happens to generally take the correct position that global warming is occurring and is a problem. However, I DO believe in climate change and the need for clean energy and alternative energy. Here is where I think the conservative media is misleading people by disproportionately citing examples of climate change proponents that appear to withhold evidence contrary to their positions. Why the media can’t just be moderate and objective, I don’t know.

  • http://GlobalPatriot.com Global Patriot

    It’s quite sad that at a time when we need to pay maximum attention to the scientific evidence at hand that some in our media feel compelled to convince viewers otherwise. The consequences are too great for this debate to become political in nature – we need to make sound decisions based on the best data available.

  • http://GlobalPatriot.com Global Patriot

    It’s quite sad that at a time when we need to pay maximum attention to the scientific evidence at hand that some in our media feel compelled to convince viewers otherwise. The consequences are too great for this debate to become political in nature – we need to make sound decisions based on the best data available.

Back to Top ↑