Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Society|Fri, Oct. 23 2009 06:36 AM EDT

American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

The percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that the earth is warming dropped sharply over the past year, according to the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Though 77 percent of Americans surveyed in both 2006 and 2007 said that there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising, and even as recent as last year, 71 percent said there is, only 57 percent of Americans surveyed this year responded the same.

The percentage of those who don’t believe that there is solid evidence, meanwhile, has risen from 16 percent just two years ago to 33 percent today.

“The decline in the belief in solid evidence of global warming has come across the political spectrum, but has been particularly pronounced among independents,” reported the Pew Research Center.

According to the survey’s results, just 53 percent of independents now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75 percent who did so in April 2008. Thirty-five percent of Republicans, meanwhile, now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49 percent in 2008 and 62 percent in 2007. Fewer Democrats also express this view – 75 percent today compared with 83 percent last year and 91 percent in 2006.

The latest survey comes two days ahead of the International Day of Climate Change Action and two months ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where national government delegations who agreed to shape an ambitious international response to climate change in 2007 will be meeting to agree on a post-2012 climate agreement that will replace the current Kyoto Protocol.

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2009 is a crucial year in the international effort to address climate change as some scientists say industrialized nations must cut emissions by 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 to prevent climate disasters, such as coastal flooding from rising sea levels, severe weather events, and variations in rainfall and temperatures that will affect agriculture and wipe out species of plants and animals.

Under the current deal, 37 industrial countries are required to cut emissions a total 5 percent from 1990 by 2012. Based on the current declarations from wealthy countries, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature estimates the total emissions cut will amount to 10 percent by 2020.

Presently, the president and Congress are considering a cap and trade policy that would set limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

Despite the growing public skepticism about global warming, the Pew survey still found more support than opposition for a policy to set limits on carbon emissions. According to Pew, half of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if this may lead to higher energy prices. Thirty-nine percent, meanwhile, oppose imposing limits on carbon emissions under these circumstances.

Similar sentiments exist within the Christian community, which largely agrees that people have a responsibility to care for God’s creation but are divided over the existence and the cause of global warming.

According to Pew, 44 percent of White non-Hispanic evangelicals say the earth is warming.

And among those who believe, there is further disagreement over its causes.

While 56 percent of global warming believers say humans are to blame for climate change, 34 percent would argue that global warming is caused naturally by changes such as alternations in the Earth’s orbit and solar energy and solar wind output.

In general, the Pew Center found that fewer than four-in-ten (36 percent) Americans say global warming is mostly caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels, while 16 percent say it is occurring mostly because of natural environmental patterns.

In regards to public concern, the survey found that a majority (65 percent) of the public continues to view global warming as a very (35 percent) or somewhat (30 percent) serious problem.

For the survey, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press interviewed 1,500 adults over cell phones and landlines Sept. 30-Oct. 4.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive

    DUH!! Could it be because it is a big fat LIE pushed on us be the odious former vice president Al Gore who once claimed he invented the internet??? Maybe people are starting to WAKE THE HECK UP and see a LIE for what it is.
    About time.

  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    It is interesting that you say that, given that most Christians do care about their environment, it is Al Gore that they don't care about and he seems to be the one that is suckering everyone into believing that nonsense. Why? because he is going to directly profit off of the Global Warming/Climate Change Legislation, Shocking that no one bothers to pick up on that part.
    --------------------
    my ativan blog

  • Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    As we say on this side of the pond....I'll have to take the Fifth (on the pif)....

  • Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, your taking the pif I think, its the measurement of a planets reflective properties...oh, dp, what am I going to do with you!!

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    albedo: the white, inner rind of a citrus fruit....

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP

    It might appear like that as a thought experiment, but in fact the water level will stay the same, try it. This is why the melting of the Arctic will not cause eustatic sea level changes. The problem (?) with melting the Arctic or any large scale ice feature is that it decreases the planets albedo.

    S

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk

    "Isn't the IPCC and the proposed Copenhagen Treaty all about CO2?"

    Not what we were discussing, you asked me about the MWP, which is a local climate event not global. I answered the question you asked me that yes I could think of possible reasons for that local climate fluctuation over a brief period of time that had completely nothing to do with C02.

    In fact its quite interesting to note in relation to that, that the UK is much warmer than it should be, it has a very unnatural climate for its latitude, that's nothing to do with CO2 either.

    BW

    Steve

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here's a question for you. If you take a glass and fill it with ice and water and let it melt...is the water level as high as the level was in the glass with the ice? So, if the ice caps melt...wouldn't that lower the water level as less water is being displaced?

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    99
    I don't intend to get into discussion with you beyond this one "food for thought" as I need to refocus my energies on other life issues. Either the water level is rising in the Netherlands or the land is sinking. Since sea-level rise is estimated to be 12" over the next 40 years it is unlikely to be a melting ice issue. Perhaps it is a sinking land issue.

    "However, the IPCC cannot be basing its estimate on sea-level rise, since even its maximum
    projected rise of just 30 cm (1 ft) by 2050 would not cause significant coastal flooding or shoreline erosion. There are several coastlines (the east coast of England, for instance) where the land is sinking as a consequence of post-ice-age isostatic recovery, or where (as in Bangladesh) tectonic subduction is similarly causing the land to sink. But such natural causes owe nothing to sea-level rise."
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    klm,

    I am truly sorry that I appeared hostile. I really wasn't.

    We do have opposing worldviews with very little in common. My view is from the cultural/political aspect along with identifying sources of truth and misrepresentation of truth. Yours appears to be from the anthropogenic global warming science exclusively.

    Gore is the poster boy for anthropogenic global warming. His film is severly flawed with at least 35 significant errors, yet he is given an Oscar for this "sci-fi" documentary and a Nobel Peace Prize (shows how a prestigious organization has gone bad; now Obama for doing nothing). The Democrats call him up before congress as an expert witness for global warming and our school kids are indoctrinated in government school science classes by having to watch Inconvenient Truth. Gore has had a profound affect on our culture and affected opinions of Americans.

    A good debate between Gore and Lord Monckton would do truth well for all Americans to witness. Other debates between pro and con scientists are in order as well.

    Newsweek was only reporting what environmental scientists were reporting to the writers. Publications such as these impact public opinion as well, based on whatever truth or misinformation is provided them. Needless to say, the environmental scientists were vascillating 4 times last century between global warming and cooling and the publications were reporting these vascillations.

    The title and subject matter for this thread is about American opinion changing on global warming: American Belief in Global Warming Takes a Dive. Gore, Newsweek and pro- Vs con- anthropogenic global warming science are all appropriate topics for this thread.

    Again, I am sorry for the appearance of hostility. I pray you will accept my apology.

    Take care

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, not exactly a Christian topic, but certainly one that stirs interest opinions, and all that jazz ( for me as well) :)

    For me, this bleeds of philosophy, psychology and hierarchy of needs. Modelled by Maslov. In essence, behaviour, effectiveness, and influence of human character was, as proposed by Maslov, based on which level that a person was in the hierarcy. at the bottom was basic needs (food, water, shelter) then above this not life threatening items and so on. up.

    In essence, a person at the lower levels in needs of basic needs, food, etc. will have little or no regards to whether they are living in an unhealthy environment, for example, that could lead to chronic long term health effects (again as an example).

    I propose that Global warming, given the current economic situation, would have to be in the upper echelon of the Maslov model, and more real issues, like jobs, economic recovery, and the ever increasing deficits have taken priority and this cannot be of any real concern, since, let's face the reality of it... Who has the money to pay for any real improvements to it?

    Is it a problem? Absolutely! In the Netherlands, every year they have to increase the height of the dams (Dikes) by 8" or so because of the ever increasing height of the ocean water levels. Due to the melting of the Glaciers without a doubt ( I am no scientist :) so I can only speculate). There are houses that have been built on seafront where they have conceded to the ocean, again due to rising sea levels.

    Multitudes of evidence which cannot be disputed would indicate that it is a major major problem, however until it hits on your doorstep, then it will probably not be regarded as a big problem.

    My 2 cents.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steve,
    Isn't the IPCC and the proposed Copenhagen Treaty all about CO2?

    Have you read about what the cost will be for what appears to be a non-issue? Huge transfer of wealth, instituting a marxist based global government, destroying our standard of living by government policy.

    Vaclav Klaus made some interesting recommendations that puts realism to this whole game:
    What do you think about this approach?

    My [Klaus} recommendations are as follows:

    1.The UN should prepare two parallel IPCC’s and publish two competing reports. To get rid of the one-sided monopoly is a sine qua non for an efficient and rational debate. Providing the same or comparable financial backing to both groups of scientists would be a good starting point.

    2. Countries should listen to one another, learn from mistakes and successes of others, but each country should be left alone to prepare its own plan to tackle this problem and decide what priority to assign to it among its other competing goals.

    We should trust in the rationality of man and in the outcome of spontaneous evolution, not in the virtues of political activism. Therefore, the answer is adaptation, not attempts to mastermind the global climate.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Rev,
    You misunderstand Prov 26. Prov 26:4 has to be used along with Prov 26:5
    4 Don’t answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you’ll be like him yourself.
    5 Answer a fool according to his foolishness, or he’ll become wise in his own eyes.[3]
    Prov 26:4-5 (HCSB)

    For instance; don't engage an opponents logical fallacies (Prov 26:4) but introduce substantial information and data to support your position and refute the opponents erroneous claims (Prov 26:5)

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Slacker: ""I see no point in any further exchanges with you on this topic, so I won't be posting any more. But you go ahead and make one last post that will go unchallenged, and you can have the thrill of feeling that you got the last word, no matter how wrong and how uninformed you are."

    I guess KLM is conceeding victory to Hawk, I guess the data isn't their to prove any point..."

    I think it more likely that klm is wise enough to follow Proverbs 26:4

    "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I see no point in any further exchanges with you on this topic, so I won't be posting any more. But you go ahead and make one last post that will go unchallenged, and you can have the thrill of feeling that you got the last word, no matter how wrong and how uninformed you are."

    I guess KLM is conceeding victory to Hawk, I guess the data isn't their to prove any point...

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You can scream "flawed!" "baseless!" at things you don't understand until you're blue in the face (or the fingertips, maybe) but that won't change reality. That you're referring to Newsweek and to Al Gore as if they were some sort of experts or authorities betrays your superficial understanding of the topic. I'd be happy to discuss the issues, the theory, and the data with someone who had a serious interest in learning, but you've already decided that what's good for Shell-BP-Texaco-Exxon is good for the world, and for Jesus"

    Is that your argument, What a Joke.... You have been had, by Al Gore and the rest of the people that want to profit from this. The cap and trade legislation is projected to raise electricity rates in the range of 100 dollars a month, do you think I care if the environment is suffering if I have to freeze to death because I can't afford my electricity bill. No, I don't care if you have all the data in the world, if my family dies because of it, what does it matter. What does any of the data matter if the people suffer because of the legislation that won't fix the problem; its irrelivant because the people that are steamrolling this don't care about people that are suffering...

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yeah, I can think of things(that are still in operation today) that would change the local climate over a brief period of time(without relating it to C02) during which the Earths mean temperature fell by 0.03 C. Why should I not? I think you are becoming a bit obsessed by C02 .

    Thanks for asking me.

    BW as always.

    Steve

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, Hawk, I see that your cut-and-paste skills are still working. You sound pretty hostile, though — maybe you'd like to talk with a professional about that?

    You can scream "flawed!" "baseless!" at things you don't understand until you're blue in the face (or the fingertips, maybe) but that won't change reality. That you're referring to Newsweek and to Al Gore as if they were some sort of experts or authorities betrays your superficial understanding of the topic. I'd be happy to discuss the issues, the theory, and the data with someone who had a serious interest in learning, but you've already decided that what's good for Shell-BP-Texaco-Exxon is good for the world, and for Jesus.

    I see no point in any further exchanges with you on this topic, so I won't be posting any more. But you go ahead and make one last post that will go unchallenged, and you can have the thrill of feeling that you got the last word, no matter how wrong and how uninformed you are.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    klm,
    I do believe your statement "The physical principles were worked out in the 19th century, and the possibility of anthropogenic emissions leading to global warming was predicted in the late 1800s." is deeply flawed and baseless:
    Dave Barton's congressional testimony;
    "Environmental science has a demonstrated pattern of announcing strong conclusions, and then reversing itself following further time and study. Consider further that the clamor about radical climate change is not new. In the 1920s, the newspapers were filled with scientists warning of a fast approaching Glacial Age; but in the 1930s, scientists reversed themselves and instead predicted serious Global Warming. But by 1972, Time was citing numerous scientific reports warning of imminent “runaway glaciation,” and in 1975, Newsweek reported overwhelming scientific evidence that proved an oncoming Ice Age, with scientists warning the government to stockpile food; in fact, some scientists even proposed melting the artic ice cap to help forestall the coming Ice Age. In 1976, the U. S. Government itself released a study warning that “the earth is heading into some sort of mini-ice age,” but now, a mere two decades later, the warning of the imminent Ice Age has been replaced by the warning of an impending Global Warming disaster. In eighty years, environmental
    science has completely reversed itself on this issue no less than three times.

    Furthermore, the scientific community is even reversing itself on its current claims.
    Just a few years ago scientists predicted that the seas would rise from 20 to 40 feet
    because of Global Warming, with “waves crashing against the steps of the U.S.
    Capitol” and “launch[ing] boats from the bottom of the Capitol steps”; additionally, onethird
    of Florida and large parts of Texas were projected to be under water. Now the
    estimates have been revised to anywhere from a few inches to a few feet at most. Clearly, the science on this issue continues to oscillate; in fact, Senator Inhofe has been
    one of many who have tracked the number of leading scientists who, after announcing
    their position in support of anthropogenic Global Warming, have reversed their position
    after further research. Such a lack of consensus and so many forceful assertions and
    repudiations merit a very cautious and guarded approach to any policy on this subject.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    steve,
    Not a tangent. Just part of the politics dealing with the global warming issue. Bottom line, the real man-made global warming issue is not about science but politics and the proposed policies.

    The minutia is fine for you, your topic is not critical for me. Take your college tests; I don't need them. Does your topic explain the medieval warm period and the studies that show temperatures preceed CO2? From the results I had seen by Lord Monckton the CO2 back in the era you are studying was much higher than we have now and the temperatures were relatively cool. The CO2 concentration during the Medieval Warm Period was lower than today yet the temperatures were higher. Nothing that matches the alarmist computer models. So delve into your minutia; I don't need it for being informed about the global warming debate, the politics involved and numerous misrepresentations committed by the alarmists.

    "The author states that it is "interesting to ask what, if any, correspondence exists between ancient climate and the [newly derived CO2] estimate." Indeed, it is very interesting to ask that question; for the political future of the entire world rests on the validity or invalidity of the climate-alarmist supposition that changes in the air's CO2 content are major determinants of changes in climate. So what do the new results show?

    Rothman reports that the CO2 history he derived "exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales." In another place he writes that "comparison with the geologic record of climatic variations reveals no obvious correspondence." And in yet another place he says that although the most recent cool period corresponds to the relatively low CO2 levels of the present, "no correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate is evident in the remainder of the record."

    If the truth be told, however, a simple visual examination of the author's plot of CO2 and climate vs. time clearly indicates that the three most striking peaks in the atmospheric CO2 record occur either totally or partially within periods of time when earth's climate was relatively cool. Hence, not only is there no proof for the climate-alarmist contention that higher CO2 concentrations tend to warm the planet, there is evidence in this study to suggest that just the opposite may be true.
    Reviewed 8 May 2002"

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    klm,
    You suffer from committing logical fallacies; ad hominem again and faulty appeal to authority.

    This is political and the funciton of IPCC constitutes junk science:

    "The IPCC’s agenda is often misunderstood. It is not to discover the truth about how the world’s incredibly complex and ever-changing climate operates. It is, instead, to justify control of the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. According to its Web site, the role of the IPCC “is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”

    Lindzen and Choi have shown the green house effect is very questionable. But what the heck, they use empirical data Vs the flawed computer models of the alarmists. Your contention is not fact but hypothesis; and what appears to be a disclaimed hypothesis at that.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Even if 100% of the population were to think that global warming isn't happening, it would not change the fact that it is.

    Some Christians feel that their faith requires them to care for the environment."

    It is interesting that you say that, given that most Christians do care about their environment, it is Al Gore that they don't care about and he seems to be the one that is suckering everyone into believing that nonsense. Why? because he is going to directly profit off of the Global Warming/Climate Change Legislation, Shocking that no one bothers to pick up on that part.

    I am not nieve enough to believe that humans arn't having an impact on the planet, but I wouldn't be so willing to jump on the bandwagon knowing moste of the scientist don't believe the hoopla either...

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It's my opinion that global warming is caused by all the hot air that politicians produce....

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    "I don't have to study the minutia to know that CO2 has little to do with global temperatures"

    I prefer to think you have not studied paleoclimatology (or basic Earth science) at all to make such a statement. It does you no credit to write such a thing.

    I think that what has occurred here is that ,not agreeing that global warming "might be caused" by man made emissions (which is fine by me) has for some reason, though which I can't quite fathom, leads you to make silly blanket statements such as the one above . Its hard to take you seriously when you write such things. I'm not aware of anybody on either side of the debate who does not agree that carbon dioxide is a strong green house gas.

    "So Gore and Monckton do have their place in this debate"

    Maybe for some, but especially for you because as you admit above you have not studied the subject., but me, I prefer to study and sit the exams.

    "The Brits apparently have lost their voice to a rather totalitarian government in the EU..."

    Rightttttt...not sure what this as to do with our discussion about my thoughts etc...but please be my guest to go off at a tangent.

    BW

    Steve

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk - cool! (pun intended).

    Hawk says that "This is a political issue. It started out as a political issue."

    Wrong. The physical principles were worked out in the 19th century, and the possibility of anthropogenic emissions leading to global warming was predicted in the late 1800s.

    If you don't like the article by Naomi Oreskes, you're still left with the statements issued by the National Academies of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Do you have anything thoughtful to say about those?

    You're also left with the fundamental fact that CO2 and other gases we're putting into the atmosphere, such as methane and oxides of nitrogen, absorb heat, thereby preventing it from being radiated into space.

    In any case, I really don't see why you think that Jesus wants you to deny the reality of anthropogenic global change.

    And, I can google too. Your friend Christopher Horner is a lawyer, not a scientist, and is another professional global change denier.

    from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chris_Horner

    Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a think tank that's received more than $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, among other corporate funders.

    Horner is a practicing attorney, and at CEI [...] duties also include being counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition, a global warming skeptics group.

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    klm
    Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Naomi Oreskes
    This study was a joke; her sloppiness was exposed and confirmed.

    The PIG to Global Warming, Christopher Horner.

    "Oreskes screed may still be cited as the basis for an absurd celluloid tale of doom, and maintain a status among the deep-green believers, but the stain on her reputation as a academic will not soon fade. She is fortunate to have entered a field notorious for rewarding such behavior."

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Hi steve,

    I said I was not going to discuss the minutia. It is being done by experts in their respective fields. I don't have to study the minutia to know that CO2 has little to do with global temperatures and the cause of global warming/cooling/change after weighing the discussions for and against man-caused global warming. This is a politically driven issue and the politicians are much more dangerous to our way of life on this issue. The IPCC is politically driven and there is much concern with the final reports they publish and the alarmist tone inputted by the politicians.

    The uni is not the center of all knowledge. Textbooks and professors have their place, but so do other sources outside the uni. Textbooks and profs have specific worldviews and will be biased accordingly. So Gore and Monckton do have their place in this debate as they bring to the debate the political and economic elements as well as validity of the science they use in making their conclusions. Do we want to forgo more sovereignty and instill more marxism and greater taxation or not? Is there truth to the alarmism?

    The Brits apparently have lost their voice to a rather totalitarian government in the EU. We still have some voice left over here and can still impact what our politicians do to a limited extent. So public debate is necessary to help us make informed decisions without delving through the minutia. We have to discern sources of truth and lies and go for it.

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    klm
    That's nice. There is no concensus on man caused climate change. The NIPCC uses the scientific findings just as the alarmist do. It all depends upon the worldview they start from for interpreting the data.

    This is a political issue. It started out as a political issue. The govt funds only proponents of the man-made global warming bent; guess what the govt funded studies will conclude? Reference R Lindzen and his encounter with Sen Gore.

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk - Al Gore is a politician who made a movie, not an "expert." The debate among experts that you call for has been going on in the scientific literature for several decades. Here's a summary (from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686):

    Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Naomi Oreskes

    [...]

    IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [...] "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

    Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

    [...]

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

    Footnotes

    5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
    Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
    Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
    6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
    7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
    8. See http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Hawk.

    Thanks for the reply, little cut and paste just to help me answer, time is short here tonight.

    "No, I am not discussing the minutia you delve into. I am discussing what this thread is based on."

    If you don't understand the basics such as the carbon cycle, the Earths GMST, positive and negative feedback's in Earth systems etc.. how can you expect to understand the bigger picture? When I was a child I spoke like a child?

    "An open debate is necessary. [I am not saying you should be a debater but rather the experts from both sides should debate in public forums. AGore and your Lord Monckton, Fred Singer and those from the IPCC, e"

    Can't be bothered with any of them, too busy studying the subjects at uni and taking the exams, that's the problem when you do that, you start to learn things for yourself, Gore, Mockton become, not very significant (they are though to those who don't know much about the subject themselves). Debates solve nothing on this subject. I'll stick with the university Earth sciences departments I study with.

    BW

    Steve

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    steve,
    No, I am not discussing the minutia you delve into. I am discussing what this thread is based on. The politically motivated outcome of the IPCC report and dissenting, scientific reporting found in the NIPCC; how and why public opinion is showing that we are waking up to lies. The basis of the alarmism is challenged which does mean that CO2 emissions is challenged. You may find contrary views to the IPCC based on peer reviewed research the IPCC selectively ignored to be enlightening. http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html

    This is what I am really addressing:

    An open debate is necessary. [I am not saying you should be a debater but rather the experts from both sides should debate in public forums. AGore and your Lord Monckton, Fred Singer and those from the IPCC, etc. Our media has been decidely one-sided about the issue and have resorted to name calling and ad hominem attacks along with the alarmists. The likes of AGore have refused to debate]

    I have concluded that this is politically driven to create the largest wealth transfer via taxation that the world has ever experienced. The copenhagen plan will also establish an international government to regulate the cash flow. This is very much in line with a marxist worldview ideology.

    You may enjoy listening to a fellow Brit, one very wise and knowledgeable about the whole picture of the alarmism. You'll find the link "Listen to the full interview with Lord Monckton" at
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=734422

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    klm,
    It was an ad hominem attack as you failed to discuss the merit of the report refuting the IPCC report. Rather you go into an opinionated attack. It appears to be your MOO. Perhaps you should do some research for yourself; There was no industry money involved with production of the report.

    It is only your biased opinion and wish that the petition were a bad joke. The list is verified contrary to your claim.

    It might do you good to read the report before you discuss it.

    Outlined below are the numbers of Petition
    Project signatories, subdivided by educational
    specialties. These have been combined, as indicated,
    into seven categories.
    1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth
    sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in
    specialties directly related to the physical
    environment of the Earth and the past and current
    phenomena that affect that environment.
    2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes
    935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical
    methods. Since the human-caused global warming
    hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer
    projections and not upon experimental observations,
    these sciences are especially important in evaluating
    this hypothesis.
    3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810
    scientists trained in the fundamental physical and
    molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids,
    which are essential to understanding the physical
    properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
    4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in
    the molecular interactions and behaviors of the
    substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are
    composed.
    5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964
    scientists trained in the functional and environmental
    requirements of living things on the Earth.

  • Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "some scientists agree with what you are studying, many others disagree. I recall a petition presented last year about 30,000 scientists, many in the climatology business, disagree with your sources and the IPCC findings."

    Hi Hawk, maybe you would like to show me some of these scientists who disagree that CO2 levels have have a profound effect on the GMST of the Earth in the past 500 MA (making it warmer as in the Cretaceous or cooler in the quaternary) .. Are you saying that 30'000 scientists signed a petition disagreeing that Tibet cooled the Earth etc...crikey that have to much time on their hands. I don't do debate, what I like to do is to go and look at the rocks or such things as the isotopic ratios of benthic marine fossils etc..to tell me about climate conditions on Earth when they were formed, and such things as CO2 levels.

    One other thing, you mentioned increased air temperature earlier, whilst that plays a role on global climate (as in how heat is distributed around the Earth), its source is more important, and that is the Earth's GMST. This is the most important aspect of the Earth's climate. In many respects green hose gasses are very good, without then we would not exist as the GMST of the Earth would be about -18 C, the green house gasses give it an effective temperature of about 15 C. The Earth's GMST is the one to watch.

    As mentioned before, I tend to think that the C02 we place in the atmosphere will after a brief period of warming actually cool the planet further , after all we are in an ice age at the moment and have been for the past few million years.



    BW as ever

    Steve

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:04 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Hawk - pointing out the professional activity of the Idsos is not an ad hominem attack. They've been hired by the Western Fuels Association, going back nearly twenty years. It's fair to point out that one shouldn't look to them for unbiased information. They might be nice guys but that's beside the point.

    I don't make ad hominem attacks but I can't prevent people from seeing what they want to see.

    The Oregon Petitiion project that you refer to (the "30,000 signatures") is a bad joke. It's run by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The OISM has no classrooms, no students, and two of the eight faculty are dead.

    The source of their "information" on global change is an article published by the founder of the OISM, in a journal "published" by an organization headed by one of the faculty members of the OISM. That is, it's essentially self-published, though they claim it's peer reviewed. The journal is not found in any research libraries nor is it in any bibliographic databases. The article demonstrates a profound lack of understanding and misapplication of statistical analysis.

    The signatories of the Oregon Petition claim whatever qualifications they like; there's no checking. Currently the website doesn't list fields of research, though it does say "Ph.D." after some names. A while back when I did find a listing of the degrees and areas of activity of the signatories, only a few hundred claimed to be research scientists in relevant fields. Many had BS degrees in fields such as computing or engineering; some were medical doctors or dentists.

    In other words, the Oregon Petition would be a joke if it weren't trying so hard to deceive people on an important matter.

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:34 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    steve,
    some scientists agree with what you are studying, many others disagree. I recall a petition presented last year about 30,000 scientists, many in the climatology business, disagree with your sources and the IPCC findings.

    An open debate is necessary.

    I have concluded that this is politically driven to create the largest wealth transfer via taxation that the world has ever experienced. The copenhagen plan will also establish an international government to regulate the cash flow. This is very much in line with a marxist worldview ideology.

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:04 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    klm,
    ad hominem attacks seems to be your specialty. Where's the substance?

    Principal findings of the book include the following:

    Climate models suffer from numerous deficiencies and shortcomings that could alter even the very sign (plus or minus, warming or cooling) of earth’s projected temperature response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.
    The model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth--especially for a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level--is much too large, and feedbacks in the climate system reduce it to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.
    Real-world observations do not support the IPCC’s claim that current trends in climate and weather are “unprecedented” and, therefore, the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
    The IPCC overlooks or downplays the many benefits to agriculture and forestry that will be accrued from the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.
    There is no evidence that CO2-induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, either on land or in the world’s oceans.
    There is no evidence that CO2-induced global warming is or will be responsible for increases in the incidence of human diseases or the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions.

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:30 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 2

    Hawk - Craig Idso and his brother Keith have long collaborated with their father, Sherwood, who has been an apologist for the fossil fuel industry and a global change denier since way back. In the early '90s Sherwood was one of the key mouthpieces in the pseudo-documentary "The Greening of Planet Earth", put out by the Western Fuels Association. So don't look to them for objective information.

    I suggest reading the primary scientific literature rather than the popular media. There's no serious question that the global temperature is increasing and that human activity is a significant part of the cause.

    steve - the iron "fertilization" idea is terrifying. We've had far too much hubris before. What if it works *really* well and brings atmospheric CO2 down to 200 ppm? How do you get the iron out of thousands of square miles of ocean? That is, assuming you survive the worldwide crop failures and probable drop in temperatures and changes in precipitation.

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change."

    Unfortunately HAWK Earth scientists, geologists, climatologists, etc.. who have studied the Earths GMST for the past 500 Ma would disagree with that. A good example would be the mountain forcing function caused by the creation of Tibet and the resulting increased monsoon over the Himalayas resulting in Carbon draw down due to silicate weathering which lowered the atmospheric reservoir and cooled the globe leading to the large scale glaciations of the late Quaternary.

    So co2 levels in the atmosphere, do effect global climate having positive and negative feed back results, those who say different, move away from and they have no idea of what the are talking about. Unless of course you like having your ears tickled?

    As I've written before I don't think the the 3x10E12kg y-1 of CO2 we put into the atmosphere will lead to long term global warming, it will have the opposite effect (but that's just my opinion)

    BW

    Steve

  • Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:36 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.

    The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

    The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

    The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia.

    Perhaps true debate is in order before the "alarmism" is considered valid.

  • Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Your very kind, its not my idea but just one that has been floated around, its an interesting though though, easy to do and very very cheap.

  • GMG »
    Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Steve

    Is anybody considering implementing something along the lines of your idea?

  • Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Okay then....

    I'm not really sure there are any cures at this time, this is how our world runs and I don't see it changing any time soon, I'd say that was a pretty realistic view, whilst nations argue it out I do think though that people can do their bit (they must decide what that is). I'd like to think though that maybe we could do somethings to balance the year on year increase in CO2 growth in the atmosphere. I prefer to think about what we could do with or environment to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere, not as far fetched as it seems.

    One of my favorites, and certainly within our grasp (its not difficult technology wise) is iron fertilization(in the iron limiting areas) of tropical oceans to encourage the growth of phytoplankton bloom. This would draw down CO2 from the atmosphere due to photosynthesis and also following death a lot of it would be either dissolved in the ocean or carried to the sea floor and buried. These blooms also create SO2 which encourages cloud formation, increasing the Earth's albedo and having a negative feedback effect on any possible increase in temperature caused by increased C02.

    Its just a thought.

    BW

    Steve

  • GMG »
    Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Steve,

    OK, fair enough. But I'm coming from the angle of the supposed causes and cures.

  • Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ho GMG

    Thats not the point I was raising, I was concentrating on getting the correct questions asked, that's all I'm interested in.

    BW

    Steve

  • Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Abodhim

    My sources are the university course I am doing and which for the past few months has concentrated on the carbon cycle especially in relation to Earths different climates in the past 500 million years. These figures though can be found re reservoirs etc,,if you just trawl the net, they are just basic Earth science. I need to correct myself though the figure I gave for our emissions to the atmospheric reservoirs is 3x 10E 12 kg, nothing changes though in relation to what I originally said though, my self correction.

    Did a three hour exam on this last week, results due week before Christmas....Gulp!!

    BW

    Steve

  • GMG »
    Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Steve,

    I have never said we don't need to pay attention to or take care of our environment, but I am saying the ways being touted, for the reasons given, are bunk. The "cures" are insufficient to the "causes", and the causes given are very open to debate by many and varying sources. Reiterate for me just how the proposed carbon credits is supposed to solve the problem.

  • Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:11 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "Okay, let me rephrase. Our co2 footprint is negligible in comparison to the total

    Incorrect, its how it effects the reservoirs that are in equillirium already that is the issue, you appear to have a problem grasping this basic Earth science (why is that?). I don't really care about Al Gore, this is the true issue you need to consider. When you do, you start to ask the correst questions.

    BW

    S

  • Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve,
    Don't figure why someone gave you a downer either. (So I gave you an upper, so life is still good).
    Am fascinated by the numbers you presented in your post. Can you give the source of your information?
    Highest regards

  • GMG »
    Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:09 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    Okay, let me rephrase. Our co2 footprint is negligible in comparison to the total. If we junked our cars, junked our cement cities, went to live in caves and covered ourselves with bearskins (no fires please), the total effect would be minimal.

    I am all for common sense approaches to taking care of this earth, but I am sick of all the panicky hype. Al Gore’s idea of “eliminating fossil fuel use in this country within 10 years” would be catastrophic, if it were possible, which it is not. The effect of such drastic measures as are being bandied about would throw our economy, and the world’s, into a dive. Do you know where our food comes from? Yep, the farmers, those fossil fuel hogs. How many of you drive economy cars? I have a Toyota Yaris, which gets 44 mpg. Pretty bare bones, but it does the job. If the govt. would quit caving into all those lobbyists, the technology to double that has been available for many years. Have you priced those electric cars? How about those hydrogen cell cars, and their batteries cost almost as much as the car. In my area of the country we have wind farms going up all over. Not real pretty, but they are non-polluting.

    You ought to look into Al Gore’s electric bill, and his fossil fuel use. He’s not real worried, just waiting to cash in. John Doe, on the other hand, is trying to feed his family and make the house payment. Who will pay in the end? John Doe of course. And all the poor in the third world countries will just get poorer and hungrier.

    All those carbon credits they want to institute will only result in a greater cost to us of our electricity and heating, along with it costing a lot more to get to work, much higher grocery bills, medical bills, and pretty much everything else we need, not to mention taxes because our govt entities will continue to function the same. The large profitable businesses will simply pass the costs on to us. Do you see the picture? All this hype, climate change will continue, and the group of people “below the poverty level” will explode in numbers, resulting in more taxes, etc etc.

    We’re back to the 70’s and newspaper headlines screaming “famine is coming, the sky is falling”.

  • Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:48 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    To help me understand their view better, I wonder if any of the people who gave me a thumbs down would like to explain why, I can't see anything contentious in it, just basic run of the mill Earth science.

    Thank you.

    Steve

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links