• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rising numbers of Americans believe climate science, poll shows

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Rising numbers of Americans believe climate science, poll shows | Environment | The Guardian

Around 70% of Americans believe in the science behind global warming - the highest level of acceptance in the US since 2008 - according to a new survey. The level of belief has increased seven percentage points in the past six months, the polling by the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College shows. The researchers said the significant rise in acceptance is particularly notable among Republicans and evangelical Christian groups
 
Anomalism said:
Rising numbers of Americans believe climate science, poll shows | Environment | The Guardian

Around 70% of Americans believe in the science behind global warming - the highest level of acceptance in the US since 2008 - according to a new survey. The level of belief has increased seven percentage points in the past six months, the polling by the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College shows. The researchers said the significant rise in acceptance is particularly notable among Republicans and evangelical Christian groups
Click to expand...

Wow! This is really great news. I hope, and predict, that the shift in belief and the resultant political action will take place on a timescale that is even faster than the one seen for the same-sex marriage issue.
 
So? Most Americans aren't scientists and would have no way of knowing the truth wither way. The real question is whether the American people agree with the steps the state must take to address the supposed problem. I suspect that percentage would be near zero.
 
This is good and all, but how many believe without knowing anything about it and how many are just giving lip service?

many people believe things but have absolutely no knowledge or education about the issues that are relevant to the beliefs.
 
Fletch said:
So? Most Americans aren't scientists and would have no way of knowing the truth wither way. The real question is whether the American people agree with the steps the state must take to address the supposed problem. I suspect that percentage would be near zero.
Click to expand...

yeah but you dont believe scientists either, so whats your point?
 
Fletch said:
So? Most Americans aren't scientists
Click to expand...

That's ironic coming from somebody that disagrees with the vast majority of scientists.
 
Last edited:
Ancient Herald said:
This is good and all, but how many believe without knowing anything about it and how many are just giving lip service?

many people believe things but have absolutely no knowledge or education about the issues that are relevant to the beliefs.
Click to expand...
In the case of AGW, Knowledge is a bad thing for the cause.
The more people study the data, the more the case for the alarmist claims fall apart.
Has there been some anthropological warming, sure, but mostly the direct response of CO2.
The predicted amplified feedback warming, if it exists, is still hiding in the noise.
Without the amplified feedback warming, all of the catastrophic predictions fall apart.
Most of the IPCC report is predicated on the warming occurring like the models predicted.
There was much concern, when the hiatus started, as it was not in the models.
The rate of warming since 1998 has slowed in two data sets, and begun cooling in the other two.
All of the warming and cooling since 1998 is not large enough to count for statical significance,
so is down in the noise also.
 
Anomalism said:
Rising numbers of Americans believe climate science, poll shows | Environment | The Guardian

Around 70% of Americans believe in the science behind global warming - the highest level of acceptance in the US since 2008 - according to a new survey. The level of belief has increased seven percentage points in the past six months, the polling by the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College shows. The researchers said the significant rise in acceptance is particularly notable among Republicans and evangelical Christian groups
Click to expand...

It is now less important, luckily. The co2 low technologies are much more affordable now. It still won't be easy taking beef off all tables but those of the elite will still not be easy. A lot of people will be sad they can no longer take a quick flight here or there to reduce climate relevant travel. But they will be healthier for cycling to the office.
 
dimensionallava said:
yeah but you dont believe scientists either, so whats your point?
Click to expand...
The Scientist opinions do not matter, only the data.
The data tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the direct response closely matches
what Physics says it should (1.2 degrees C for doubling the CO2 level)
For the GISS data set, when one subtracts out the increase in Solar intensity (TSI),
the direct response for CO2, and the adjustments to the data (GISS7/15),
The only unaccounted for warming in the last 134 years, is .05 C.
Did CO2 cause some warming, of course, about .55 C in over that time window,
But it was the predicted amplified feedback, that is the cause of alarm from the IPCC.
If the feedback is only a small fraction of the predicted amount, the cause for alarm
vanishes.
As I have said many times, we have much bigger problems than CO2,
sustainable energy being at the top of the list.
Solving the sustainable energy problem, will also solve any CO2 problem
real or imagined!
 
It's a really boring subject that nobody ever discusses. I don't think anybody gives a crap to honest with ya. Unless it's costing them money.
 
Anomalism said:
Yeah, why should we listen to the opinions of the people most qualified to have them?
Click to expand...
The Motto of the Royal Society is,
Nullius in verba
(Take nobody's word for it)
Click to expand...
Beside, opinions are meaningless if unsupported by the data.
All of the catastrophic predictions by the IPCC, are based on the warming predicted by the models.
The models projected the warming from 1978 to 1998 forward based on the growth curves of CO2.
They came up with continued warming of .21 C per decade.
The warming in the GISS global since 1998 has been .068 C per decade,
and that is only after switching inputs in 7/15 to give an extra .05 C.
 
[h=2] Burn oil, feed the world, grow plants, save forests, get richer, live longer. Why we urgently need to raise CO2.[/h]
It’s time to stop ***** footing around. We need higher levels of CO2. It is morally and ethically irresponsible to be silent while millions starve, biodiversity is under threat, and people are dying from cold weather.
Carbon dioxide increases crops, forest and plant life by 14% and is worth $140 billion, just in agricultural production. Thanks to CO2, forests have been protected because farms are more efficient in a higher CO2 world.
Countries that don’t do their part in producing enough carbon dioxide emissions need to lift their game. Coal use should be favoured over nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. Countries like France are free-riding on the nations like China, the US, and Australia — which are helping to green the world and feed the starving.
Indur Goklany has put together a comprehensive report on the benefits of CO2 for the GWPF.
The advantage of higher CO2 for all C3 crop plants is spectacular. That’s rice, wheat, barley, rye, cotton, sugar beet, spinach, and potato. C4 plants evolved in the last 30 million years to be good at dealing with low CO2 atmospheric concentration (corn, sugarcane, cabbage, broccoli, sedge, daisy.) Most plants are C3.
Figure 1: Carbon dioxide fertilization (in ppm, horizontal axes) of C3 crop and C4 weed
Source: von Caemmerer et al. (2012).

Cold kills more than heat does, even in hot towns more people die in winter:
The pattern of a higher death rate in the colder months also holds for all-cause mortality in tropical and subtropical areas in China, Bangladesh, Kuwait, and Tunisia. Mortality rates apparently also peak in winter in Sao Paulo, Brazil; Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico; Santiago, Chile, Cape Town, South Africa; and Nairobi, Kenya (see Figure 9). It is also the case for the southern US states of Florida, Texas, California and even Hawaii.198 In addition, in Cuba, deaths from heart diseases and cerebrovascular diseases, which account for 37% of all deaths, peak in the colder (winter) months.
Conclusion — higher CO2 concentrations improves both human and plant well-being.
Keep reading →
 
Climates are shifting all over the U.S. Some places are getting colder and wetter, others hotter and dryer. The heat waves of the past summer were super intense.

People will wake up to the scientific realities as they see radical change to local weather patterns, based on global trends.
 
longview said:
The Scientist opinions do not matter, only the data.
The data tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the direct response closely matches
what Physics says it should (1.2 degrees C for doubling the CO2 level)
For the GISS data set, when one subtracts out the increase in Solar intensity (TSI),
the direct response for CO2, and the adjustments to the data (GISS7/15),
The only unaccounted for warming in the last 134 years, is .05 C.
Did CO2 cause some warming, of course, about .55 C in over that time window,
But it was the predicted amplified feedback, that is the cause of alarm from the IPCC.
If the feedback is only a small fraction of the predicted amount, the cause for alarm
vanishes.
As I have said many times, we have much bigger problems than CO2,
sustainable energy being at the top of the list.
Solving the sustainable energy problem, will also solve any CO2 problem
real or imagined!
Click to expand...

i must be one of your alarmists then.

i've read the entire IPCC report.

And there are other factors that deniers, well, deny.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2] Burn oil, feed the world, grow plants, save forests, get richer, live longer. Why we urgently need to raise CO2.[/h]
It’s time to stop ***** footing around. We need higher levels of CO2. It is morally and ethically irresponsible to be silent while millions starve, biodiversity is under threat, and people are dying from cold weather.
Carbon dioxide increases crops, forest and plant life by 14% and is worth $140 billion, just in agricultural production. Thanks to CO2, forests have been protected because farms are more efficient in a higher CO2 world.
Countries that don’t do their part in producing enough carbon dioxide emissions need to lift their game. Coal use should be favoured over nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. Countries like France are free-riding on the nations like China, the US, and Australia — which are helping to green the world and feed the starving.
Indur Goklany has put together a comprehensive report on the benefits of CO2 for the GWPF.
The advantage of higher CO2 for all C3 crop plants is spectacular. That’s rice, wheat, barley, rye, cotton, sugar beet, spinach, and potato. C4 plants evolved in the last 30 million years to be good at dealing with low CO2 atmospheric concentration (corn, sugarcane, cabbage, broccoli, sedge, daisy.) Most plants are C3.
Figure 1: Carbon dioxide fertilization (in ppm, horizontal axes) of C3 crop and C4 weed
Source: von Caemmerer et al. (2012).

Cold kills more than heat does, even in hot towns more people die in winter:
The pattern of a higher death rate in the colder months also holds for all-cause mortality in tropical and subtropical areas in China, Bangladesh, Kuwait, and Tunisia. Mortality rates apparently also peak in winter in Sao Paulo, Brazil; Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico; Santiago, Chile, Cape Town, South Africa; and Nairobi, Kenya (see Figure 9). It is also the case for the southern US states of Florida, Texas, California and even Hawaii.198 In addition, in Cuba, deaths from heart diseases and cerebrovascular diseases, which account for 37% of all deaths, peak in the colder (winter) months.
Conclusion — higher CO2 concentrations improves both human and plant well-being.
Keep reading →
Click to expand...

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Well, this is certainly a new approach in an ongoing argument! :thumbs: We all know that plant life needs CO2 to survive and thrive, so it will be interesting to read any response that downplays that fact. Until then, the good news is that we can all start breathing normally again without feeling really guilty! :mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2] Burn oil, feed the world, grow plants, save forests, get richer, live longer. Why we urgently need to raise CO2.[/h]
It’s time to stop ***** footing around. We need higher levels of CO2. It is morally and ethically irresponsible to be silent while millions starve, biodiversity is under threat, and people are dying from cold weather.
Carbon dioxide increases crops, forest and plant life by 14% and is worth $140 billion, just in agricultural production. Thanks to CO2, forests have been protected because farms are more efficient in a higher CO2 world.
Countries that don’t do their part in producing enough carbon dioxide emissions need to lift their game. Coal use should be favoured over nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. Countries like France are free-riding on the nations like China, the US, and Australia — which are helping to green the world and feed the starving.
Indur Goklany has put together a comprehensive report on the benefits of CO2 for the GWPF.
The advantage of higher CO2 for all C3 crop plants is spectacular. That’s rice, wheat, barley, rye, cotton, sugar beet, spinach, and potato. C4 plants evolved in the last 30 million years to be good at dealing with low CO2 atmospheric concentration (corn, sugarcane, cabbage, broccoli, sedge, daisy.) Most plants are C3.
Figure 1: Carbon dioxide fertilization (in ppm, horizontal axes) of C3 crop and C4 weed
Source: von Caemmerer et al. (2012).

Cold kills more than heat does, even in hot towns more people die in winter:
The pattern of a higher death rate in the colder months also holds for all-cause mortality in tropical and subtropical areas in China, Bangladesh, Kuwait, and Tunisia. Mortality rates apparently also peak in winter in Sao Paulo, Brazil; Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico; Santiago, Chile, Cape Town, South Africa; and Nairobi, Kenya (see Figure 9). It is also the case for the southern US states of Florida, Texas, California and even Hawaii.198 In addition, in Cuba, deaths from heart diseases and cerebrovascular diseases, which account for 37% of all deaths, peak in the colder (winter) months.
Conclusion — higher CO2 concentrations improves both human and plant well-being.
Keep reading →
Click to expand...

considering this was written by a well known climate change denier who is on EXXON's payroll and whose field of expertise is electrical engineering not climate science or any variation there of, i don't believe this

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=807
 
polgara said:
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Well, this is certainly a new approach in an ongoing argument! :thumbs: We all know that plant life needs CO2 to survive and thrive, so it will be interesting to read any response that downplays that fact. Until then, the good news is that we can all start breathing normally again without feeling really guilty! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

I like to add a wrinkle every now and then.
 
Ancient Herald said:
i must be one of your alarmists then.

i've read the entire IPCC report.

And there are other factors that deniers, well, deny.
Click to expand...
When one looks at what the technical portions of IPCC reports, it goes back to
a simple concept.
Direct response warming from doubling the CO2 level, causes warming of about 1.2°C.
The 1.2°C is amplified by open loop feedbacks to yield total warming (ECS)of between 1.5 and 4.5 °C.
If the actual warming is above about 2.5 °C, bad things could happen.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
The majority of the predicted bad things, are predicated on a high level
of amplified feedback. (To get to an ECS of 3 °C would require a 2.5 X amplification factor.)
The problem with that prediction, is that there is not much evidence that it exists,
except for one or two year events. Over decade time periods the amplification is usually less than 1 X.
For the ECS to get to 3 °C would require many decades in a row of greater than 2.5 C amplification.
 
How do I know you are truly being objective here and are not a denier that is just using tricky language to distract things?
 
Ancient Herald said:
How do I know you are truly being objective here and are not a denier that is just using tricky language to distract things?
Click to expand...
Well let's look at the sources,
The IPCC in AR5, cites Baede et al, 2001, as the more comprehensive source
for the key concepts in Climate Science.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...er01_FINAL.pdf
1.2.2
Key Concepts in Climate Science
Here, some of the key concepts in climate science are briefly described;
many of these were summarized more comprehensively in earlier IPCC
assessments (Baede et al., 2001).
Click to expand...
Baede et al, 2001,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
Click to expand...
So the 1.2°C warming as a direct response from doubling the CO2 Level comes straight from the IPCC,
as does 1.5 to 4.5°C range from the amplified feedbacks.

So 1.2 times 2.5 equals 3, no mystery mathematics there.
Even if you use the most cooked data set, the GISS Global,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Total solar Ir radiance reconstruction here,
LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance
The J-D column is the January to December annual global average.
The historic CO2 levels can be found at NASA,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt
The formula for the CO2 warming is 1.73 *ln(CO2high/CO2low), (example 1.73 *ln(560/280)=1.2°C
The IPCC thinks an energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2 will cause warming of 1.2°C,
so 1.2/3.71= how much warming from each Wm-2 of extra energy.
Everything is there to show the contributions from the known pieces.
Anything left would be unknown, but could be the predicted feedback.
warming%.png
 
longview said:
In the case of AGW, Knowledge is a bad thing for the cause.
The more people study the data, the more the case for the alarmist claims fall apart.
Has there been some anthropological warming, sure, but mostly the direct response of CO2.
The predicted amplified feedback warming, if it exists, is still hiding in the noise.
Without the amplified feedback warming, all of the catastrophic predictions fall apart.
Most of the IPCC report is predicated on the warming occurring like the models predicted.
There was much concern, when the hiatus started, as it was not in the models.
The rate of warming since 1998 has slowed in two data sets, and begun cooling in the other two.
All of the warming and cooling since 1998 is not large enough to count for statical significance,
so is down in the noise also.
Click to expand...

Except the scientists say the opposite.

In fact, the more they study the data over time, the MORE convinced they are that AGW is real, as evidenced by the increasing certainly over the years in the IPCC reports.

Yet retired guys with calculators and no training in Earth Science 'discover' the opposite on a daily basis in these forums!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom