Pew: Most Americans don’t believe in “Scientific Consensus” on Climate Change

crichtonscientificconsensus1

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/pew-most-americans-dont-believe-scientific-consensus-climate-change

Nearly three-quarters of Americans don’t trust that there is a large “scientific consensus” amongst climate scientists on human behavior being the cause of climate change, according to an in-depth survey on “the politics of climate” released Tuesday by Pew Research Center.

According to the survey, only 27 percent of Americans agree that “almost all” climate scientists say that human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change, while 35 percent say that “more than half” of climate scientists agree on this. An additional 35 percent of those surveyed say that fewer than half (20%) or almost no (15%) climate scientists believe that human behavior is the main contributing factor in climate change.

Pew contrasted this to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which “stated in the forward to its 2013 report, ‘the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.’”

Additionally, Americans were skeptical about the expertise of climate scientists.

Just 33 percent of those surveyed said that climate scientists understand “very well” whether global climate change is happening, another 39 percent said climate scientists understand this “fairly well.” Twenty-seven percent of those surveyed say climate scientists don’t understand this “too well” or don’t understand it at all.

When it comes to the causes of global climate change only 28 percent say climate scientists understand them “very well” while 31 percent say the scientists understand them “not too well” or “not at all.”

Additionally, Americans seemed to lack trust in climate scientists’ solutions to climate change. Only 19 percent say climate scientists understand very well the best ways to address climate change, and 35 percent say the scientists understand this not too well or not at all.

Americans also don’t trust the news media’s coverage of climate change. Forty-seven percent of those surveyed say the media does a “good job” covering global climate change, while 51% say they do a “bad job.”

Thirty-five percent of Americans say the media “exaggerate the threat of climate change,” and 42 percent say the media “don’t take the threat of climate change seriously enough.” Just 20 percent say the media are “about right in their reporting.”

———-

“Additionally, Americans were skeptical about the expertise of climate scientists”

wise position to take..

“Only 19 percent say climate scientists understand very well the best ways to address climate change, and 35 percent say the scientists understand this not too well or not at all.”

thats because all roads lead back to a carbon tax for these white coats..always the same solutions..we pay..

“Thirty-five percent of Americans say the media “exaggerate the threat of climate change,”

65% still drinking the kool aid..

401

~ by seeker401 on October 11, 2016.

13 Responses to “Pew: Most Americans don’t believe in “Scientific Consensus” on Climate Change”

  1. Reblogged this on World Peace Forum.

  2. Stalin will be proud of our NSW edukasion Kamps

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/students-taught-sunsets-destroyed-by-global-warming/news-story/e942fca6a647ec99f0bdced13ebffde1?nk=5cf206e2f000137bfa27650b498f40fc-1476681211

    • its a religion..and the most ardent adherents are fucking oblivious to it..

      DOOMSDAY climate change lessons are being taught to children as young as eight who are concluding that human activity threatens to destroy beautiful sunsets and ­waterways.

      Six schools in the state’s north are trialling a “world first” curriculum that is expected to be adopted across the state, if successful.

      The NSW Education Department-approved trial is being run by Southern Cross University’s Lismore campus…

      Some children have concluded that humans have “succeeded in destroying much of the physical world”.

      One student researcher in northern NSW said: “It is selfish and horrible how humans are causing animal and plant species to die.”…

      Organiser and Southern Cross University education lecturer David Rousell said schools in Bexhill, Mullumbimby and Alstonville had taken on the interdisciplinary model, which could be taught in English, creative arts, science and history classes…

      “Kids are doing amazing work where they take a photo which represents some aspect of climate change and they write about it. Some students take photos of beautiful things such as sunsets or waterways and then write about how it could be lost or destroyed because of climate change.”

      Sunsets, even? Seriously?

      And why is this nonsense pushed even in English and creative arts classes? This does not sound like the teaching of science. It sounds instead like indoctrination into a faith.

  3. Paris Climate Change Deal Becomes International Law

    By Michael Astor, Associated Press United Nations — Nov 4, 2016

    Paris Climate Change Deal Becomes International Law

    John Kerry
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/paris-climate-agreement-international-law-43293709

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/ParisAgreement?src=hash

  4. Paris celebrates the Paris Agreement entering into force by “greening” the Eiffel Tower & Arc de Triomphe!

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/ParisAgreement?src=hash

  5. http://energy.gov/what-mission-innovation

  6. Video

    Accelerating the Clean Energy Revolution
    An international effort to DOUBLE clean energy R&D.
    https://twitter.com/ErnestMoniz

    • $15 – $30 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!!

      CRooks!

      • CLEAN ENERGY ‘TRANSFORMATION’

        “POSITION US VERY WELL FOR WHAT WILL BE A GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY ‘MARKET’ that’s going to be MEASURED in the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!

        MEANS ‘PRIVATE’ PROFIT paid for by the TAXPAYERS for another government / corporate/ banker SCHEME!

        and of course, BILL GATES is involved in this too.

  7. The Great Climate Change Bamboozle

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
    H. L. Mencken

    Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 Gt (+/- 1.8%) of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred fluxes Gt/y (+/- ??) flowing among those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know? BTW fossil fuel between 1750 and 2011 represented 0.34% of the biospheric carbon cycle.

    Mankind’s modelled additional atmospheric CO2 power flux (W/m^2, watt is power, energy over time) between 1750 and 2011, 261 years, is 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo reflects 100 W/m^2 (+/- 30 & can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 (+/- 8). Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.

    One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2. perpetual loop w/o work, 3. cold to hot w/o work, 4. doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net W/m^2 balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses included in the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming (+/- 12.3 W/m^2). Of course Dr. Trenberth says they are wrong because their cooling results are not confirmed by his predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years. (“All of the net TOA imbalances are not tenable and all except CFSR imply a cooling of the planet that clearly has not occurred.”) Except it also hasn’t gotten hotter.

    Every year the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis continues (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3) IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.

    As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.

    BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

    “The term Lysenkoism is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process (e.g. CAGW) as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”

    • thankyou nick..great post..

      “The term Lysenkoism is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process (e.g. CAGW) as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: