On the downside, a couple of hard La Nina powered winters have driven some Americans into the denier camp:
The percentage of Americans who think global warming is just another planetary trend has increased, though Democrats and more likely than Republicans to blame human activity for environmental change a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds.
Forty-four percent of voters polled said global warming is the result of long-term planetary trends, according to the survey. In 2006, 35 percent agreed.
On the other hand, a survey of 3146 Earth Scientists conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman reveals that 97% of real dyed-in-the-wool climate scientists (as opposed to the broader catagory of Earth scientists) agree that human activity is causing global warming. In real numbers, that means that only two of the scientists surveyed do not agree. Tim Lambert suggests the two holdouts were Fred Singer and Lindzen.
A couple of interesting sub-results:
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement.
Finally, some unkind words on the Doran survey from Planet Gore. Unfortunately, the author steps on his own rebuttal by offering this quote from Chris Horner re an earlier survey by Klaus-Martin Schulte:
The alarmists even go so far as to insert themselves in the process when researchers seek to publish data that would reflect poorly on their own alarmism but otherwise has nothing to do with them. Their fight over the claim of consensus seems as if they are protecting their queen bee, fully aware that once it falls their entire colony goes with it. So when Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, a surgeon and researcher at King’s College Hospital in London affirmed as absurd the notion of scientific agreement on global warming, its causes, and impacts, the alarmists had to make sure he couldn’t get published.
Schulte assessed what the current literature was saying on the matter by reviewing 528 papers addressing climate change—not just obscurely referencing the phrase, as did Oreskes—published from 2004 to February 2007. This covered the period since May 2005 when the IPCC closed the Fourth Assessment Report’s window for research eligible, for complete and open consideration by authors and reviewers alike.
Schulte found that “a mere 38, or 7%, explicitly support the consensus. Daily Tech, an online magazine, says the ratio goes to 45% ‘if one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement).’ While only 32, or 6%, of the papers reject the consensus outright, Daily Tech blogger Michael Asher reports that the ‘largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.’” Hardly consensus.
Well, no, "the alarmists" didn't suppress Schulte's paper. In fact, it was rejected by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of Energy and Environment. For those unaware of E&E's reputation, if you're a sceptic and E&E refuses your paper--that's like having a pig reject your garbage.
Update: John Mashey notes in the comments that E&E eventually did publish the Schulte paper.
pretty sure human activity is driving climate denial
ReplyDeleteTHat's interesting, coming hard on the heels of a poll that said 77% of Canadian believe global warming is real and if I recall correctly, that same # believed it was due to human activity.. do you remember that poll, BCL?
ReplyDeleteAnyhow.. I find that an interesting contrast of views on climate change between the US and Canada, despite Harper being in power.
Yeah I do, though I don't have the link. U.S. voters tend to score lower on these polls than almost any other country. The U.S. Conservative movement essentially has a whole alternative media that pumps this blather to the true (un)believers. Very hard to penetrate.
ReplyDeleteU.S. voters tend to score lower on these polls than almost any other country.
ReplyDeleteThe issue hasn't been as big as it has in other countries. The reason for that is simply there have been bigger fish for the left to fry. Now that Obama is in and is willing to take action that should change. I suspect the numbers in the US will reflect those in Canada in a couple of years.
1) Well, actually, rhe editor of E&E, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen said that the paper was not of interest, but then she changed her mind and published it anyway.
ReplyDelete2) Schulte is an endocrine researcher and surgeon, whom Christopher Monckton apparently met due to his endocrine problems.
3) OF COURSE, it makes sense for an endocrine surgeon to pontificate on climate science. :-).
4) See DeSMogBlog's SKpetic's Journal Publishes Plagiarist's Paper. It also has a pointer to the 40-page analysis I did of the whole silly affair, which incurred Monckton's ire, placing me on his Bad List. In that thread, you will see his comments, followed a bit later by mine.
5) I'd say it was amazing that Schulte is getting brought up again ... if I hadn't seen the behavior before.
6) Summary: Monckton, Schulte, Rob Ferguson, blogopsheric disinformation, incompetence, personal attacks on Naomi Oreskes, plagiarism.
BCL, this Rasmussen poll is crap since it invents a unique phrase to ask about ("planetary trends") and respondents can't ask for clarification since it's an automated poll.
ReplyDeleteAlthough he's a right-winger, this sort of poll is not Rasmussen's usual line of work; i.e. very likely one of the usual suspects paid for it.