[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
So, you disagree with what Gallup says.
I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.
Who cares what you disagree with. Gallup chose to add a second catagory. And, since they have a large number of professionals looking at the issue, my money is on them. What it is not on, as any rational person would know, is useing data over 2 years old instead of current data. We were, me boy, talking about 2016, which makes your chart of little value.
Funny thing is, if you put in the term gloval climate change poll, you would have found both. But there would be more of the 2016 polls, only one or so for 2014. Yet you picked the 2014 poll which better fitted your liking, with a lower percentage of those polled that thought CS was an issue. What a coincidence. Dipshit.
Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.
OK. Same issue. you can simply substitute warming, same issue for you. Different in that gw includes fewer variables. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Who cares what you disagree with
You do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.
Well, you are wrong again. I care about what Gallup says, and know that you are, technically, full of shit.
Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.
OK. Same issue.
Same issue? LOL!
That's why people don't take the fearmongering seriously anymore
Fearmongering? Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists? What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously. Only con talking points suggest otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Fearmongering? Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists?
Which scientists predicted such a long pause in the warming?
As a con troll, I am not at all surprised you asked that question. But it has been answered by scientists already, and you missed the memo apparently. You must just be too deep in the bat shit crazy con talking points.
The answer is, it is not something they were surprised at. And there has been no pause. You are simply taking a con talking point and trying to push it. Really, me boy, listening to Lamar Smith makes you look really stupid. But the question is important, so lets see what FactCheck.org found when they looked into Lamar's charges, which you are now using in your ignorant question:
"Smith Still Wrong About Warming ‘Halt’
Rep. Lamar Smith at a recent hearing claimed a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change “confirms the halt in global warming.” It doesn’t. In fact, the authors of the paper write, “We do not believe that warming has ceased.”
Red, bold, and underlines added by me to help you find the truth for once, me boy.
Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and longtime
climate change skeptic, used the
Nature study as ammunition against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
an ongoing battle over the validity of a paper that NOAA researchers
published in the journal
Science last June.
While the
Nature study, published online in late February, claims there was a “slowdown” in the rate of global warming in the early 21st century, the
Science paper argues there was not. But the studies compared different time periods.
Both studies agree that there was no complete halt in global warming and the long-term warming trend remains unabated.
At the
March 16 House hearing, Smith also continued to criticize the
Science paper. He said the paper was “prematurely published,” but the editor-in-chief of
Science told us Smith’s claim is “baseless and without merit.” Smith also said that the NOAA researchers used “controversial methods” in their study, but the authors of the
Nature paper cited by Smith said this wasn’t the case. In fact, they
cite the
Science paper as having “high scientific value.”
Overall, each study asked different scientific questions, the answers to which can both remain valid and correct, according to the
Nature authors themselves.
Smith vs. NOAA
This is not the first time Smith, a Republican from Texas, has made false statements about climate science and the so-called “Karl study,” named after
Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information and the
Science paper’s lead author.
e’ve written before, Smith claimed in October 2015 that “climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades” and that NOAA scientists “altered the data” to get the results they presented in the
Science study.
Motivated to quell what he
considers the NOAA and Obama administration’s “
extreme climate change agenda,” Smith used the House science committee’s subpoena power
on Oct. 13 to obtain internal communications at NOAA regarding the Karl study. NOAA has
provided the committee with some documents and emails, though Smith continues to request more information.
In the battle’s latest episode, NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan testified before the House science committee on
March 16 on NOAA’s 2017 budget. Again, Smith
brought up the Karl study, claiming it was “prematurely published” and used “controversial new methods,” among other things.
During the hearing, Sullivan countered by stating that the final timing of any publication is “at the discretion of the publication itself.” She also said
Science “scrubbed this paper with extra diligence” due to the “interest in this matter.”
According to Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief at Science, Smith is wrong and Sullivan is right. In fact, McNutt told us by email, “Any suggestion that the review of this paper was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit.”
McNutt added that “knowing that this report’s results disputed the existence of a 21st century global warming slowdown described in previous studies,
Science took extra care to assure even more rigorous review and evaluation than normal.”
When asked to provide evidence that NOAA had prematurely published the Karl study, a committee aide for Smith pointed us to a
Nov. 23, 2015, Washington Post article. In that article, Thomas Peterson, an author of the
Science study and retired NOAA climate scientist, describes “internal tensions” between NOAA scientists and engineers over delays related to the programs used to process the climate data. But in the same piece, Peterson is quoted as stating that the research was not rushed. “Indeed just the opposite is true,” he told the
Post.
Smith made a few new claims during the March 16 budget hearing as well. He said, “A new peer-reviewed study, published in the journal Nature, confirms the halt in global warming. According to one of the study’s lead authors, it ‘essentially refutes’ NOAA’s study.” Smith also repeatedly asked Sullivan to side with either the Science or the Nature study’s findings because he claimed both can’t be “correct” or “valid.”
First off, the two papers’ disagreement was on whether the rate of warming has slowed in the first 15 years of the 21st century, not whether warming has halted, as Smith claimed.
Second, John Fyfe, lead author of the Nature paper, told us in an email that Smith took his comment during an interview with the website Climate Central out of context. “It would be incorrect to interpret [the ‘essentially refutes’] quote as indicating that Fyfe et al. refuted the Karl et al. study in its entirety.” He said, “As we said in our Commentary we view the Karl et al. study as being of ‘high scientific value.’ ”
Third, according to McNutt and the Nature authors, both papers could, in fact, remain valid and correct. For example, Gerald Meehl, an author on the Nature paper and climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, pointed us to a segment of an article with Environment & Energy Publishing, which states “both comparisons are valid … and provide answers to different questions.”
In the following section we’ll explain the similarities and differences between the two papers’ methods and results and why both can remain valid.
Science vs. Nature
Both the
Science and the
Nature papers begin by mentioning the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s description of a surface warming slowdown between 1998 and 2012 in its
Fifth Assessment Report. Both papers also note that researchers use “hiatus” to describe this slowdown in the
scientific literature — a point Smith’s committee aide made to us. But technically the rate of global warming never completely halted during this period, as both papers state.
For this reason, the authors of the
Nature paper
write that it’s “unfortunate” that the 21st century warming trend has been framed as having “stalled,” “stopped,” “paused” or “entered a ‘hiatus.’ ” While “[j]ust exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate,” the authors suggest “reduced rate of warming,” “decadal fluctuation” and “temporary slowdown” as some possibilities.
Both papers diverge when it comes to the specific questions the researchers asked, and, accordingly, how they quantified the slowdown.
The authors of the
Science paper compared the rate of warming during the period between 2000 and 2014 with that of 1951 to 1999, though they also investigated trends in warming dating back to 1880.
The
Nature authors, alternatively, compared the warming rate of 2001 to 2014 with a shorter period — 1972 to 2001.
The rationale for using different time periods is tied, at least in part, to the ultimate aim of each study.
The
Science study was
designed to determine if the global warming trend for “the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century.” It found there was no “slowdown” in global warming compared with this 50-year period.
The
Nature study, on the other hand,
strove to figure out whether the rates of global warming fluctuate every few decades, so the authors compared the first 15 years of the 21st century with a shorter time period. They reported that the rate had slowed down from 1950 to 1972, then sped up from 1972 to 2001, and then slowed again from 2001 to 2014. “A warming slowdown is thus clear in observations; it is also clear that it has been a ‘slowdown’, not a ‘stop,’ ” the study concluded.
Meehl told us by email that it was mainly the Karl study’s “interpretation of different trend lengths [discussed above] that we took issue with.”
However, Meehl said he did not find the Karl study’s methods to be “controversial.” The adjustments the NOAA scientists made to their data, which Smith has criticized, “were fairly minor,” added Meehl, and involved calibrating different sets of data to each other.
For example, data on sea surface temperatures alone can come from buoys, ship engine-intake systems and buckets dropped off the side of a ship. As the
Science study
states, “ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data,” so adjustments need to be made to calibrate them to each other.
The same inconsistencies occur when data are collected from different land stations. In fact, the
Nature paper
describes the Karl study’s identification and correction of these data “errors and inhomogeneities” as “of high scientific value.”
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University and an author on the
Naturepaper, wrote Smith an open letter on March 3, which directly addressed the chairman’s false claims.
In his letter, which was
posted on Facebook, Mann wrote: “Please don’t misrepresent our recent Nature Climate Change commentary. Our study does NOT support the notion of a ‘pause’ in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.”
In sum, based on their different questions and correspondingly different time period comparisons, the
Science and
Nature studies came to different, though equally valid, conclusions about the warming rate in the early 21st century.
Regardless, neither paper supported a halt in global warming, as Smith claimed."
Smith Still Wrong About Warming ‘Halt’
So, in short, your question was answered by scientists who stated there was no pause, and that the climate change continued and continues. Maybe, however, your con talking points would be better for you. They say what you want to hear, rather than the complex truth. Which is beyond you.
What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously.
Good for you. The people still aren't willing to waste...err...invest their own money in fixing the "problem".
That's because they don't take it as seriously as you imagine.
That would be you not willing to look at the polls, nor at what the pollsters are saying. They will, me boy. They will. That climate change boat you are in is in fact an iceberg and it is melting.
You may not have noticed, but your associates are leaving like rats off a sinking ship,
