Re: [clim] How to stop the lies that "trashthe science behind global warming
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Ken Caldeira
Mar 14, 2011, 11:37:47 PM3/14/11
to m2de...@cablespeed.com, Climate Intervention
Those statistics just are not right.
Here is a summary of the Gallup Poll results: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx
In the past year, according to that poll, 57% thought the scientific view was correct or underestimated and 41 % thought it exaggerated. A change from 62% and 35% respectively. A big change and a cause for concern, but a far cry from the statistics you cited.
The question is: what does it mean? What percentage of Americans could accurately tell you how much the Earth's global mean temperature might increase as a result of CO2 doubling? If you asked them first: What does the science say? my guess is you would get a different answer on the exaggeration question.
What the polls probably mean is that pundits that many people trust say the science is exaggerated.
----
For further insight, have a look at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.html
or: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Leiserowitz_Cancun4.pdf
or: http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skeptics-believe-in-climate-change-28772/
-----------------
From: http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skeptics-believe-in-climate-change-28772/
In an experiment conducted as part of a large survey, the researchers found 44 percent of Republicans endorsed the notion that “global warming” is real, but 60.2 percent said the same of “climate change.”
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Here is a summary of the Gallup Poll results: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx
In the past year, according to that poll, 57% thought the scientific view was correct or underestimated and 41 % thought it exaggerated. A change from 62% and 35% respectively. A big change and a cause for concern, but a far cry from the statistics you cited.
The question is: what does it mean? What percentage of Americans could accurately tell you how much the Earth's global mean temperature might increase as a result of CO2 doubling? If you asked them first: What does the science say? my guess is you would get a different answer on the exaggeration question.
What the polls probably mean is that pundits that many people trust say the science is exaggerated.
----
For further insight, have a look at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.html
or: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Leiserowitz_Cancun4.pdf
or: http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skeptics-believe-in-climate-change-28772/
-----------------
From: http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skeptics-believe-in-climate-change-28772/
In an experiment conducted as part of a large survey, the researchers found 44 percent of Republicans endorsed the notion that “global warming” is real, but 60.2 percent said the same of “climate change.”
In contrast, 86 to 87 percent of Democrats endorsed the reality of a changing climate, no matter which descriptive phrase was used. This means the partisan divide over the issue is either overwhelmingly enormous or potentially bridgeable, depending upon the terminology one uses.
Schuldt and his co-authors, Sara Konrath and Norbert Schwarz, inserted a question into the 2009 American Life Panel survey, conducted by the RAND Corporation. Most of the 2,261 panelists were recruited from respondents to the Survey of Consumer Attitudes conducted by the University of Michigan.
Half responded to this statement: “You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up over the past 100 years, a phenomenon sometimes called ‘global warming.’ What is your personal opinion regarding whether or not this has been happening?”
The other half were presented with that exact same statement, except the words “going up” were replaced by “changing,” and the term “global warming” was replaced by “climate change.” All then reported their belief on a seven-point scale, from “Definitely has not been happening” to “Definitely has been happening.”
Overall, 74 percent of respondents either definitely or tentatively believed “climate change” was real, but that number went down to 67.7 percent when the “global warming” wording was used.
The researchers found this difference was driven almost entirely by self-described Republicans. For Democrats, the difference was nearly nonexistent, with 86.4 percent endorsing climate change and 86.9 percent acknowledging global warming. Among Independents, 74 percent endorsed climate change, while 69.5 percent acknowledged global warming.
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:04 PM, m2redmond <m2de...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
All-
It's very disturbing to me that the US public has gone from a vast
majority (~80%) believing that global warming is real to now something
on the order of 40-45% in a just little over one year's time. Add to
this the fact that most/all of the republican party now either refutes
global warming (saying the science is "junk") or at minimum claiming
climate scientists are "mixed" on the issue, and you have mass-
confusion which will prevent any meaningful policy changes from taking
place.
by media (i.e. Fox) and elected officials (i.e. Republican party)
80% believing that climate science showing global warming is real, is
likely caused by humans/CO2 emmissions
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
Eugene I. Gordon
Mar 15, 2011, 8:47:47 AM3/15/11
to kcal...@gmail.com, m2de...@cablespeed.com, Climate Intervention
I am a scientist, not the lay public. I know that we have been experiencing warming for 10,000 years, long before the start of the industrial revolution.. I do not know the extent of anthropogenic global warming nor does anyone else. Neither consensus nor pronouncements by nominal experts will provide truth. Only proper application of the scientific method will provide truth and that truth will not likely be revealed in the near future.
I don’t trust pundits but I am in the 41%.
However, I do believe in realistic contingency planning. Only geoengineering provides a viable contingency plan. All the rest are political and I do not trust politicians.
m2redmond
Mar 15, 2011, 10:45:51 AM3/15/11
to Climate Intervention
Dr. Caldiera-
Thank you for your response. My post was inadvertently sent before it
was finished, which included correcting the 80% figure, so I agree
with you and apologize for the error. I did read your references.
The main concern that I'd like to communicate is with the trend in the
polls coupled with Republicans in office being more outspoken recently
against global warming.
The Gallop Poll that you reference was from March of 2009- now 2 years
ago and which highlights my concern. That is exactly my point- that
there was heightening skepticism 2 years ago and what would that poll
look like today. If those graphs were extrapolated to March 2011 that
would be cause for my concern.
I'm sure you have a better pulse on the reality of the situation.
However, if my post has been deleted and you think it's still a
worthwhile topic for discussion, please let me know and I'll repost
with corrections (maybe I could send it to you first for review?).
Thanks again-
Mark
On Mar 14, 8:37 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Those statistics just are not right.
>
> Here is a summary of the Gallup Poll results:http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warmi...
>
> -----------------
>
> From:http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skept...
>
> *In an experiment conducted as part of a large survey, the researchers found
>
> *In contrast, 86 to 87 percent of Democrats endorsed the reality of a
>
> *Schuldt and his co-authors, Sara Konrath and Norbert Schwarz, inserted a
>
> *Half responded to this statement: “You may have heard about the idea that
>
> *The other half were presented with that exact same statement, except the
>
> *Overall, 74 percent of respondents either definitely or tentatively
>
> *The researchers found this difference was driven almost entirely by
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for your response. My post was inadvertently sent before it
was finished, which included correcting the 80% figure, so I agree
with you and apologize for the error. I did read your references.
The main concern that I'd like to communicate is with the trend in the
polls coupled with Republicans in office being more outspoken recently
against global warming.
The Gallop Poll that you reference was from March of 2009- now 2 years
ago and which highlights my concern. That is exactly my point- that
there was heightening skepticism 2 years ago and what would that poll
look like today. If those graphs were extrapolated to March 2011 that
would be cause for my concern.
I'm sure you have a better pulse on the reality of the situation.
However, if my post has been deleted and you think it's still a
worthwhile topic for discussion, please let me know and I'll repost
with corrections (maybe I could send it to you first for review?).
Thanks again-
Mark
On Mar 14, 8:37 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Those statistics just are not right.
>
>
> In the past year, according to that poll, 57% thought the scientific view
> was correct or underestimated and 41 % thought it exaggerated. A change from
> 62% and 35% respectively. A big change and a cause for concern, but a far
> cry from the statistics you cited.
>
> The question is: what does it mean? What percentage of Americans could
> accurately tell you how much the Earth's global mean temperature might
> increase as a result of CO2 doubling? If you asked them first: What does the
> science say? my guess is you would get a different answer on the
> exaggeration question.
>
> What the polls probably mean is that pundits that many people trust say the
> science is exaggerated.
>
> ----
>
> For further insight, have a look at:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.html
>
> or: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Leiserowitz_Cancun4.pdf
>
> or:http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skept...
> In the past year, according to that poll, 57% thought the scientific view
> was correct or underestimated and 41 % thought it exaggerated. A change from
> 62% and 35% respectively. A big change and a cause for concern, but a far
> cry from the statistics you cited.
>
> The question is: what does it mean? What percentage of Americans could
> accurately tell you how much the Earth's global mean temperature might
> increase as a result of CO2 doubling? If you asked them first: What does the
> science say? my guess is you would get a different answer on the
> exaggeration question.
>
> What the polls probably mean is that pundits that many people trust say the
> science is exaggerated.
>
> ----
>
> For further insight, have a look at:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.html
>
> or: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Leiserowitz_Cancun4.pdf
>
>
> -----------------
>
> From:http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skept...
>
> *In an experiment conducted as part of a large survey, the researchers found
> 44 percent of Republicans endorsed the notion that “global warming” is real,
> but 60.2 percent said the same of “climate change.”*
>
> *In contrast, 86 to 87 percent of Democrats endorsed the reality of a
> changing climate, no matter which descriptive phrase was used. This means
> the partisan divide over the issue is either overwhelmingly enormous or
> potentially bridgeable, depending upon the terminology one uses.*
> the partisan divide over the issue is either overwhelmingly enormous or
>
> *Schuldt and his co-authors, Sara Konrath and Norbert Schwarz, inserted a
> question into the 2009 American Life
> Panel<https://mmicdata.rand.org/alp/index.php/Main_Page>survey,
> conducted by the RAND Corporation. Most of the 2,261 panelists were
> recruited from respondents to the Survey of Consumer Attitudes conducted by
> the University of Michigan.*
> recruited from respondents to the Survey of Consumer Attitudes conducted by
>
> *Half responded to this statement: “You may have heard about the idea that
> the world’s temperature may have been going up over the past 100 years, a
> phenomenon sometimes called ‘global warming.’ What is your personal opinion
> regarding whether or not this has been happening?”*
> phenomenon sometimes called ‘global warming.’ What is your personal opinion
>
> *The other half were presented with that exact same statement, except the
> words “going up” were replaced by “changing,” and the term “global warming”
> was replaced by “climate change.” All then reported their belief on a
> seven-point scale, from “Definitely has not been happening” to “Definitely
> has been happening.”*
> was replaced by “climate change.” All then reported their belief on a
> seven-point scale, from “Definitely has not been happening” to “Definitely
>
> *Overall, 74 percent of respondents either definitely or tentatively
> believed “climate change” was real, but that number went down to 67.7
> percent when the “global warming” wording was used.*
>
> *The researchers found this difference was driven almost entirely by
> self-described Republicans. For Democrats, the difference was nearly
> nonexistent, with 86.4 percent endorsing climate change and 86.9 percent
> acknowledging global warming. Among Independents, 74 percent endorsed
> climate change, while 69.5 percent acknowledged global warming.*
> nonexistent, with 86.4 percent endorsing climate change and 86.9 percent
> acknowledging global warming. Among Independents, 74 percent endorsed
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA+1 650 704 7212begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1 650 704 7212 end_of_the_skype_highlightingkcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:04 PM, m2redmond <m2des...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> > All-
> > It's very disturbing to me that the US public has gone from a vast
> > majority (~80%) believing that global warming is real to now something
> > on the order of 40-45% in a just little over one year's time. Add to
> > this the fact that most/all of the republican party now either refutes
> > global warming (saying the science is "junk") or at minimum claiming
> > climate scientists are "mixed" on the issue, and you have mass-
> > confusion which will prevent any meaningful policy changes from taking
> > place.
>
> > by media (i.e. Fox) and elected officials (i.e. Republican party)
>
> > 80% believing that climate science showing global warming is real, is
> > likely caused by humans/CO2 emmissions
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Climate Intervention" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:04 PM, m2redmond <m2des...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> > All-
> > It's very disturbing to me that the US public has gone from a vast
> > majority (~80%) believing that global warming is real to now something
> > on the order of 40-45% in a just little over one year's time. Add to
> > this the fact that most/all of the republican party now either refutes
> > global warming (saying the science is "junk") or at minimum claiming
> > climate scientists are "mixed" on the issue, and you have mass-
> > confusion which will prevent any meaningful policy changes from taking
> > place.
>
> > by media (i.e. Fox) and elected officials (i.e. Republican party)
>
> > 80% believing that climate science showing global warming is real, is
> > likely caused by humans/CO2 emmissions
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Climate Intervention" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
>
> - Show quoted text -
Josh Horton
Mar 15, 2011, 1:48:32 PM3/15/11
to Climate Intervention
Hi Gene,
In what sense is geoengineering "not political," but cap-and-trade,
carbon taxes, business-as-usual, etc. are political? Every policy
option is inherently political. How else to explain something like
the CBD moratorium?
Josh Horton
joshuah...@gmail.com
On Mar 15, 8:47 am, "Eugene I. Gordon" <euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I am a scientist, not the lay public. I know that we have been experiencing
> warming for 10,000 years, long before the start of the industrial
> revolution.. I do not know the extent of anthropogenic global warming nor
> does anyone else. Neither consensus nor pronouncements by nominal experts
> will provide truth. Only proper application of the scientific method will
> provide truth and that truth will not likely be revealed in the near future.
>
> I don't trust pundits but I am in the 41%.
>
> However, I do believe in realistic contingency planning. Only geoengineering
> provides a viable contingency plan. All the rest are political and I do not
> trust politicians.
>
> From: climatein...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:climatein...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:38 PM
> To: m2des...@cablespeed.com
> Cc: Climate Intervention
> Subject: Re: [clim] How to stop the lies that "trashthe science behind
> global warming
>
> Those statistics just are not right.
>
> Here is a summary of the Gallup Poll results:http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warmi...
> gerated.aspx
> ieve-in-climate-change-28772/
>
> -----------------
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
In what sense is geoengineering "not political," but cap-and-trade,
carbon taxes, business-as-usual, etc. are political? Every policy
option is inherently political. How else to explain something like
the CBD moratorium?
Josh Horton
joshuah...@gmail.com
On Mar 15, 8:47 am, "Eugene I. Gordon" <euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I am a scientist, not the lay public. I know that we have been experiencing
> warming for 10,000 years, long before the start of the industrial
> revolution.. I do not know the extent of anthropogenic global warming nor
> does anyone else. Neither consensus nor pronouncements by nominal experts
> will provide truth. Only proper application of the scientific method will
> provide truth and that truth will not likely be revealed in the near future.
>
> I don't trust pundits but I am in the 41%.
>
> However, I do believe in realistic contingency planning. Only geoengineering
> provides a viable contingency plan. All the rest are political and I do not
> trust politicians.
>
> From: climatein...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:climatein...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:38 PM
> To: m2des...@cablespeed.com
> Cc: Climate Intervention
> Subject: Re: [clim] How to stop the lies that "trashthe science behind
> global warming
>
> Those statistics just are not right.
>
> gerated.aspx
>
> In the past year, according to that poll, 57% thought the scientific view
> was correct or underestimated and 41 % thought it exaggerated. A change from
> 62% and 35% respectively. A big change and a cause for concern, but a far
> cry from the statistics you cited.
>
> The question is: what does it mean? What percentage of Americans could
> accurately tell you how much the Earth's global mean temperature might
> increase as a result of CO2 doubling? If you asked them first: What does the
> science say? my guess is you would get a different answer on the
> exaggeration question.
>
> What the polls probably mean is that pundits that many people trust say the
> science is exaggerated.
>
> ----
>
> For further insight, have a look at:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.html
>
> or: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Leiserowitz_Cancun4.pdf
>
> or:http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skept...
> In the past year, according to that poll, 57% thought the scientific view
> was correct or underestimated and 41 % thought it exaggerated. A change from
> 62% and 35% respectively. A big change and a cause for concern, but a far
> cry from the statistics you cited.
>
> The question is: what does it mean? What percentage of Americans could
> accurately tell you how much the Earth's global mean temperature might
> increase as a result of CO2 doubling? If you asked them first: What does the
> science say? my guess is you would get a different answer on the
> exaggeration question.
>
> What the polls probably mean is that pundits that many people trust say the
> science is exaggerated.
>
> ----
>
> For further insight, have a look at:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.html
>
> or: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Leiserowitz_Cancun4.pdf
>
> ieve-in-climate-change-28772/
>
> -----------------
>
> From:http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skept...
> ieve-in-climate-change-28772/
>
> In an experiment conducted as part of a large survey, the researchers found
> 44 percent of Republicans endorsed the notion that "global warming" is real,
> but 60.2 percent said the same of "climate change."
>
> In contrast, 86 to 87 percent of Democrats endorsed the reality of a
> changing climate, no matter which descriptive phrase was used. This means
> the partisan divide over the issue is either overwhelmingly enormous or
> potentially bridgeable, depending upon the terminology one uses.
>
> Schuldt and his co-authors, Sara Konrath and Norbert Schwarz, inserted a
> question into the 2009 American Life Panel
> <https://mmicdata.rand.org/alp/index.php/Main_Page> survey, conducted by
> From:http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/global-warming-skept...
> ieve-in-climate-change-28772/
>
> In an experiment conducted as part of a large survey, the researchers found
> 44 percent of Republicans endorsed the notion that "global warming" is real,
> but 60.2 percent said the same of "climate change."
>
> In contrast, 86 to 87 percent of Democrats endorsed the reality of a
> changing climate, no matter which descriptive phrase was used. This means
> the partisan divide over the issue is either overwhelmingly enormous or
> potentially bridgeable, depending upon the terminology one uses.
>
> Schuldt and his co-authors, Sara Konrath and Norbert Schwarz, inserted a
> question into the 2009 American Life Panel
> the RAND Corporation. Most of the 2,261 panelists were recruited from
> respondents to the Survey of Consumer Attitudes conducted by the University
> of Michigan.
>
> Half responded to this statement: "You may have heard about the idea that
> the world's temperature may have been going up over the past 100 years, a
> phenomenon sometimes called 'global warming.' What is your personal opinion
> regarding whether or not this has been happening?"
>
> The other half were presented with that exact same statement, except the
> words "going up" were replaced by "changing," and the term "global warming"
> was replaced by "climate change." All then reported their belief on a
> seven-point scale, from "Definitely has not been happening" to "Definitely
> has been happening."
>
> Overall, 74 percent of respondents either definitely or tentatively believed
> "climate change" was real, but that number went down to 67.7 percent when
> the "global warming" wording was used.
>
> The researchers found this difference was driven almost entirely by
> self-described Republicans. For Democrats, the difference was nearly
> nonexistent, with 86.4 percent endorsing climate change and 86.9 percent
> acknowledging global warming. Among Independents, 74 percent endorsed
> climate change, while 69.5 percent acknowledged global warming.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
> respondents to the Survey of Consumer Attitudes conducted by the University
> of Michigan.
>
> Half responded to this statement: "You may have heard about the idea that
> the world's temperature may have been going up over the past 100 years, a
> phenomenon sometimes called 'global warming.' What is your personal opinion
> regarding whether or not this has been happening?"
>
> The other half were presented with that exact same statement, except the
> words "going up" were replaced by "changing," and the term "global warming"
> was replaced by "climate change." All then reported their belief on a
> seven-point scale, from "Definitely has not been happening" to "Definitely
> has been happening."
>
> Overall, 74 percent of respondents either definitely or tentatively believed
> "climate change" was real, but that number went down to 67.7 percent when
> the "global warming" wording was used.
>
> The researchers found this difference was driven almost entirely by
> self-described Republicans. For Democrats, the difference was nearly
> nonexistent, with 86.4 percent endorsing climate change and 86.9 percent
> acknowledging global warming. Among Independents, 74 percent endorsed
> climate change, while 69.5 percent acknowledged global warming.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:04 PM, m2redmond <m2des...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> All-
> It's very disturbing to me that the US public has gone from a vast
> majority (~80%) believing that global warming is real to now something
> on the order of 40-45% in a just little over one year's time. Add to
> this the fact that most/all of the republican party now either refutes
> global warming (saying the science is "junk") or at minimum claiming
> climate scientists are "mixed" on the issue, and you have mass-
> confusion which will prevent any meaningful policy changes from taking
> place.
>
> by media (i.e. Fox) and elected officials (i.e. Republican party)
>
> 80% believing that climate science showing global warming is real, is
> likely caused by humans/CO2 emmissions
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Climate Intervention" group.
> To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> climateinterven...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:climateintervention%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:04 PM, m2redmond <m2des...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> All-
> It's very disturbing to me that the US public has gone from a vast
> majority (~80%) believing that global warming is real to now something
> on the order of 40-45% in a just little over one year's time. Add to
> this the fact that most/all of the republican party now either refutes
> global warming (saying the science is "junk") or at minimum claiming
> climate scientists are "mixed" on the issue, and you have mass-
> confusion which will prevent any meaningful policy changes from taking
> place.
>
> by media (i.e. Fox) and elected officials (i.e. Republican party)
>
> 80% believing that climate science showing global warming is real, is
> likely caused by humans/CO2 emmissions
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Climate Intervention" group.
> To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> climateinterven...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages