The Campaign To Make You Care About Climate Change Is Failing Miserably

[Figaro]

Quoth the link:

Since 1989, there’s been no significant change in the public’s concern level over global warming. To put this in perspective, note that the most expensive public-relations campaign in history—one that includes most governmental agencies, a long list of welfare-sucking corporations, the public school system, the universities, an infinite parade of celebrities, think tanks, well-funded environmental groups and an entire major political party—has, over the past 25 years or so, increased the number of Democrats who “worry greatly” about global warming by a mere four percentage points.

The Campaign To Make You Care About Climate Change Is Failing Miserably

We may not be able to alter the natural cycles of the climate but it is wrong headed to tempt fate by hiding under rocks thinking the issue will go away.
That "climatologists" have sold out to secure lucrative government grants and joined the global warming bandwagon has cast a shadow over real science that doesn't depend on skewed speculation about what will happen years, decades even a century from now when, as we all know, weather forecasters often can't accurately predict the local weather much more than a few hours in advance.
And this is with not given the climate cycles

 

[Sonny Clark]

Quoth the link:

Since 1989, there’s been no significant change in the public’s concern level over global warming. To put this in perspective, note that the most expensive public-relations campaign in history—one that includes most governmental agencies, a long list of welfare-sucking corporations, the public school system, the universities, an infinite parade of celebrities, think tanks, well-funded environmental groups and an entire major political party—has, over the past 25 years or so, increased the number of Democrats who “worry greatly” about global warming by a mere four percentage points.

The Campaign To Make You Care About Climate Change Is Failing Miserably

We may not be able to alter the natural cycles of the climate but it is wrong headed to tempt fate by hiding under rocks thinking the issue will go away.
That "climatologists" have sold out to secure lucrative government grants and joined the global warming bandwagon has cast a shadow over real science that doesn't depend on skewed speculation about what will happen years, decades even a century from now when, as we all know, weather forecasters often can't accurately predict the local weather much more than a few hours in advance.
And this is with not given the climate cycles

Climate change is a normal and natural cycle, and has been for millions of years now. We need to worry about the things that we have control over and stop wasting time on things that we have no control over. In addition, even if we could control the climate, the technology is too far in the future for us to get all excited now and ignore the really big issues. Shouldn't the threat of nuclear war, global hunger, global poverty, global health issues, terrorism, and human rights take priority over the out-side possibility of us controlling the climate?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Is this why they skipped earth day. It usually gets big build up, didn't hear anything this time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is this why they skipped earth day. It usually gets big build up, didn't hear anything this time.

Earth Day is April 22

 

[Skull Pilot]

Climate change is consistently on the bottom of the list of the concerns of US citizens.

I'm all for conservation (because it saves money) and consuming less pollutants I can do that without all the fear mongering and predictions of biblical disasters

 

[John Marston]

Is this why they skipped earth day. It usually gets big build up, didn't hear anything this time.

Do you mean Earth Hour?

 

[John Marston]

Climate change is consistently on the bottom of the list of the concerns of US citizens.

I'm all for conservation (because it saves money) and consuming less pollutants I can do that without all the fear mongering and predictions of biblical disasters

About how climate change concerns of US citizens

Americans' global warming views have been in a holding pattern for the past few years.
This winter, much of the country experienced either unusually hot, cold or snowy weather, theoretically providing cause for people to reflect on whether they were witnessing normal variation in weather or the effects of global warming. However, most Americans believe the strange weather reflects natural variations, not global warming -- and the stability of Gallup's global warming trends underscores this.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Is this why they skipped earth day. It usually gets big build up, didn't hear anything this time.

Do you mean Earth Hour?

That's it....turn your lights out and feel righteous

 

[Old Rocks]

As the changes in climate accelerate, and more people are harmed by those changes, a political debt will be payed by those that pandered to willfull ignorance.

 

[August West]

As the changes in climate accelerate, and more people are harmed by those changes, a political debt will be payed by those that pandered to willfull ignorance.

Nearly 40% of americans don`t believe in Evolution either. Being ignorant is one thing but the OP thinks it`s a badge of honor. We no longer have a president that foreigners laugh at but they still have us.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember, consensus is a cult term and never used by real scientists

 

[cnm]

As the changes in climate accelerate, and more people are harmed by those changes, a political debt will be payed by those that pandered to willfull ignorance.

Nah, they'll slide. The US politicians have only to appeal to the rights of individuals over the common good and the US public will scoop up that excuse gratefully. I mean, we see it already.

 

[cnm]

The scientific consensus as agreed and sent to the Senate by just about all US scientific societies except petroleum engineers is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientific consensus. F=ma and a great many other such things. There is general scientific consensus on evolution, and there is scientific consensus on the causes of climate change.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Those in denial are obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords. Yet you fools go with the latter.

 

[cnm]

[...] Those in denial are obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords. Yet you fools go with the latter.

It's a gift.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Scientific consensus. F=ma and a great many other such things. There is general scientific consensus on evolution, and there is scientific consensus on the causes of climate change.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Those in denial are obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords. Yet you fools go with the latter.

A matter of opinion.

 

[Old Rocks]

The scientific consensus as agreed and sent to the Senate by just about all US scientific societies except petroleum engineers is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.

Actually, that is quite a story on the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. The membership actually forced the leadership to change it's stance, many simply stating that if that remained the statement of the Society, then they would cease to belong to the society.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Global warming controversy[edit]
In 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting author Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award for Jurassic Park and "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming.[6] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[7] The AAPG's award for journalism lauded "notable journalistic achievement, in any medium, which contributes to public understanding of geology, energy resources or the technology of oil and gas exploration." The name of the journalism award has since been changed to the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[8]

The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[9] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[10]

As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[11] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[12]

2007 AAPG revised position[edit]
Acknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[13] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.

The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[14]

AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientific consensus. F=ma and a great many other such things. There is general scientific consensus on evolution, and there is scientific consensus on the causes of climate change.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Those in denial are obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords. Yet you fools go with the latter.

A matter of opinion.

I see. So you state that F=Ma is a matter of opinion?

The basis of the AGW theory is based on the absorption spectra of the GHG's. Those were first measured by Tyndall in 1858. The first quantification of the Greenhouse effect was done by Savante Arrnhenius in 1896, and his prediction for the temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 was pretty accurate for the tools he had.

No, scientfic theories are not matters of opinion. They are based on scientific laws, observations, and evidence from those observations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientific consensus. F=ma and a great many other such things. There is general scientific consensus on evolution, and there is scientific consensus on the causes of climate change.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Those in denial are obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords. Yet you fools go with the latter.

Real scientists welcome debate, skepticism and rigorous testing of their theories; on the other hand, Doomsday Cults attempt to silence critics by insisting they have "consensus" which is a term with no place in real science

Want to watch OR crumble?

What does your "law" say about the temperature increase from an instantaneous 120ppm increase of CO2 in a closed container

 

[cnm]

A matter of opinion.

Which bit?