Bummer: 87% Of Americans Are Unfamiliar With The Warmist Consensus

Remember the days when you went to the Weather Channel for, get this, weather? Now you go for Progressive propoganda

87 Percent of Americans Unaware There’s Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Nearly 90 percent of Americans are unaware that there is a consensus within the scientific community that human-caused climate change is real and threatens the planet, a new report says.

According to the report published last week by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, only 13 percent of Americans were able to correctly identify that more than 90 percent of all climate scientists have concluded that climate change is real.

The annual survey of 1,266 adults compiled in May and June failed to note that it is actually 97 percent of climate scientists that concur that human-caused global warming is happening.

If you’re thinking that they’re referring to the utterly debunked and discredited Cook et all “study”, you’d be correct. Look at this graphic

It is utterly silly in that the question is asking if they know what scientists are thinking. Really, humans do affect the climate. They question is “how much”? The Cook survey determined that, when the papers actually took a view, was 50% or less among most. And, get this, from the report from Yale

Only one in three Americans (33%) discuss global warming with family and friends “often” or “occasionally,” while most say they “rarely” or “never” discuss it (67%). Additionally, fewer than half of Americans (43%) hear about global warming in the media at least once a month, and only one in five (19%) hear people they know talk about global warming at least once a month.

25+ years of spreading awareness and this is the best they can do? Even with all the fear-mongering from the media, which is almost fully under control of Cult of Climastrology members? With TV programs, constant world-wide meetings, indoctrination in schools, programs at museums and aquariums, etc and so on? Warmists should get their money back from the advertising agency. They aren’t doing a good job.

Oh, and consensus is not science. It’s politics.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Bummer: 87% Of Americans Are Unfamiliar With The Warmist Consensus”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Bullshit article, bullshit survey.

  2. Alan McIntire says:

    That 90% figure is a meaningless stat. I believe human caused global warming is happening, but I also believe the human component is miniscule and should be ignored. The survey doesn’t state what fraction think that human caused global warming is serious enough to cripple our economy.

  3. Jl says:

    They haven’t heard because there is no 90% consensus.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Alan,

    What you believe is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory that human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

    There is NO evidence that transitioning from a fossil-fuel based economy will cripple our economy.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      What IS relevant is the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory that human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to blah, blah, blah, blah.

      Little jeffuckery is on a roll tonight.

    • david7134 says:

      No evidence, fool statement.

    • Alan McIntire says:

      According to Trenberth’s figures, we get about 390 watts per square meter from the sun, a doubling of
      CO2 is supposed to increase that by 3.7 watts.
      The average temperature of the earth is supposed to be 15 C or 288 K.

      According to IPCC figures, a doubling of CO2 would supposedly increase the surface flux
      by 3.7 watts per square meter.

      From the Stefan-Boltzmann law, doubling of CO2 would supposedly result in an average temperature
      increase by a factor of

      (( 390+3.7)/390)^0.25 =1.00236 so temps should increase from 288 K
      to 1.00236* 288 K = 288.7 K with a doubling of CO2. That’s barely
      noticeable, so a bunch of scare stories on positive feedbacks were hypothesized.
      I’m familiar with palaeontology, so I’m aware that oceans have existed
      for billions of years.
      I also know a little about astronomy. According to theory, the sun
      started out only 70% as luminous as it is now 4.6 billion years ago, and has been warming at a roughly
      constant rate ever since.
      Despite that warming, temperatures have held relatively stable, and
      liquid oceasns have existied for most of that time. Obviously there
      must be a strong NEGATIVE feedback from water- clouds- water vapor
      else the oceans would have boiled away or frozen solid long ago,
      killing off all metazoan life. Therefore, those assumed large
      postive feedbacks MUST be wrong.

      Also consider what is proposed to FIGHT global warming. Humans put
      out a certain fraction of atmospheric CO2, maybe 1%. That 1% extra
      per year is supposed to have a catastrophic effect. Proposed
      measures resolving to cut this to 60% by say 2040 are supposed to
      make a material difference over the next century. How is it that
      increasing CO2 by 1% over natural rates over the next century would
      have a catastrophic effect and restricting CO2 use to
      only 0.6% over naturarl background rates would somehow make a
      measurable positive difference?
      Our current fossil reserves, coal and oil, will last us maybe 500
      years at current rates of consumption. After that, we’ll have to
      rely entirely on nuclear reactors, etc. A 1% increase in CO2
      production over only a few centuries cannot devastate life on earth,
      else it would already have happened over geological eras. That CO2
      in the atmosphere must have come from volcanoes. The earth must
      have been gradually cooling over billions of years as the radioactive
      elements in the earth’s core decay. Since volcanic activity is a
      result of earth’s interior heat, volcanic activity must ALSO have been
      falling off over geological aeons. That gradual reduction in tectonic
      activity must result in less CO2 and water vapor being recycled into
      the atmosphere.

      In sum, we already have enough data to rule out CAGW completely. To believe in Catastrophic
      Anthropological Global Warming, one has to believe that Astrophysicists don’t know what they’re
      talking about when they discuss the evolution of stars, or that Paleontologists and Geologists
      don’t know what they’re talking about when they state earth had liquid oceans and life going
      back 4 billon years, or that mathematicians and physicists don’t know what they’re talking about
      when they say temperature is proportional to the fourth ROOT of radiaton, and that the effects of
      increased CO2 in the atmosphere are LOGARITHMIC, with a doubling increasing surface flux by only 3.7 watts.

      • Jeffery says:

        So based on simple physics a doubling of CO2 should theoretically increase the mean global surface temperature from 288K to 288.7K or about 0.7 degrees C. We have seen 1 degree C warming as the CO2 has only increased by 40% (from 280 to 400 ppm). And you see that as a invalidation of the greenhouse gas theory why?

        Are you arguing that CO2 has not increased? And if you admit that it has increased over the past century, where did it come from? Evidence clearly shows the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 came from the carbon locked in fossil fuels.

        Has the Sun been warming the past century? No. In fact the Sun has been in a slight cool phase as the Earth has warmed.

        The actual data and evidence contradict your own “hypotheses” and “folk” science.

        In fact, there is not one shred of evidence to refute the greenhouse gas theory. You might speculate that negative feedbacks will stop the warming, and we all hope you are right, but hope is not evidence, otherwise gods, angels, demons and miracles would be real.

        • Alan McIntire says:

          Obviously there are factors other than CO2 involved. 1880 to 1915 cool period. From 1880 to 1890, temperatures dropped 0.35 ° C (0.6° F) in only 10 years. From 1890 to
          1900, temperatures rose 0.25 ° C (0.45 ° F) in 10 years, after which temperatures dipped slightly (0.15 ° C (0.3 ° F) until about 1915. Global temperatures rose steadily in the 1920s,
          1930s, and early 1940s. By the mid 1940s, global temperatures were about 0.5 °C (0.9° F) warmer than they had been atthe turn of the century . More high temperature records for the century were recorded in the 1930s than in any other decade of the 20th century. All of this occurred before CO2 emissions began to soar after 1945 , so at least half of the warming of the past century cannot have been caused by manmade CO2. Global temperatures began to cool in the mid–1940’s at the point when CO2 emissions began to soar . Global temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped about 0.5° C
          from the mid-1940s until 1977 and temperatures globally cooled about 0.2° .

          NONE of those fluctuations were caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.

          • Jeffery says:

            Alan,

            You are exactly right that factors other than CO2 affect the mean global surface temperature. But the consistent trend in warming over the past century results from CO2.

        • david7134 says:

          Another stupid comment, fool.

          • david7134 says:

            Comment directed to Jeff. Alan, your assessments and comments are spot on and go along with the thinking that is dismantling its absurd climate farce. But you are wasting time exchanging comments with Jeff the fool. He will never acknowledge that you have a point or are right. He will lead you along, mostly using lies for his points and in the end will start calling you names, mostly that you might be a racist.

    • JGlanton says:

      “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
      —Bertrand Russell

  5. JGlanton says:

    An that’s without negative feedbacks and cloud formation effects

  6. JGlanton says:

    The most I can sign up for is about +0.45 C maximum effect of greenhouse gasses but even that may not include a full understanding of how the planet responds to and releases extra heat.

    • Alan McIntire says:

      I think you’re right. My 0.7 C figure was an imaginary “worst case” scenario, where all of the additional 3.7 watts from a doubling of CO2 goes into sensible heat. In reality, there are negative feedbacks from clouds, the latent heat of vaporization of water, and the latent heat of convection, which currently eat about 20% of the energy coming into the earth. If 20% of the additional wattage from a doubling of CO2 went into latent heat, the warming would be only
      {(390 + 0.8*3.7)/390}^0.25 times current temps, or 0.54 K, and that’s without taking into consideration the additional negative feedback from additional cloud cover.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Alan,

    I’ve read through it before. Please look at Fig 1a to clarify what the authors meant when they said: “Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed”. See the difference between the models (black line) and the RSS data (red)?

    Also you’ve changed the argument just a bit. The earlier discussion was about whether the basic physics calculations about atmospheric CO2 and heat retention were consistent the current rapid warming. We all concluded yes, but not exactly. There is more warming than the simplest physics model predicted. That’s why the modeling scientists start feeding in negative and positive feedbacks.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10010 access attempts in the last 7 days.