Belief in Global Warming (in the U.S.) Falling?
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
While majority of developed countries had already moved beyond the debate, belief in Global Warming in the U.S. is falling, with a deep partisan divide.
"The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted April 23-27 among 1,502 adults, finds that the already substantial partisan divide over global warming has widened in the past year. Fully 84% of Democrats and 75% of independents say there is evidence that the earth's temperatures have been rising, compared with just 49% of Republicans.
"Among Republicans, far more moderates and liberals than conservatives say there is evidence of global warming (69% vs. 43%). However, the proportion of both groups expressing this view has declined since January 2007." [read more]
The science may be settled (although this is still debatable) and Al Gore could update his slideshow as much as need, but belief is what drives people. Unfortunately, the more people know about the science of Global Warming, the less alarmed they are. And therein lies a paradox.
Then again, good science neither requires consensus nor belief, nor it offers certainty on complex phenomena. So when scientists and the media are saying different things, lay people are left to resort to their ideologies, political affiliations, and instincts.
So where are you on the Climate Change belief scale?
Access: Public
belief
July 2008
Here in north Idaho we had the snowiest winter on record. In a recent article in the Coeur d'Alene Press, the author stated that the abundant snowfall was caused by the cooling of the planet. My thought “????” I also have neighbors who laugh at the idea of global warming and they give this winter as proof.
Summer before last we had the hottest summer in 90 years.
I think what people are confused about is that they think global warming means it will be warm everywhere, but it is my impression that it means climate change. Climate change can mean that our weather might be warmer or colder or wetter or drier.
“I think what people are confused about is that they think global warming means it will be warm everywhere, but it is my impression that it means climate change. Climate change can mean that our weather might be warmer or colder or wetter or drier.”
exactly. that's why Climate Change was coined, to better describe the problem of Global Warming. but some say Climate Change is redundant. so some people suggest that it's more appropriate to use Climate Crisis in order to convery to people the dire need to address the problem.
~C
C4, have you (or has anyone else) read Lovelock's “Revenge of Gaia”?
In the 70s, Lovelock invented the device that allowed scientists to measure CFCs in the atmosphere (at the time the were only a few parts per trillion, barely measurable). He wrote a paper saying that they pose no significant threat to life on earth, human or otherwise. A few years later some other scientists pointed out that CFCs could in fact melt the ozone layer. Lovelock was skeptical at first, but he now says his skepticism on CFCs was the biggest mistake of his career. Meanwhile, in RoG (published last year I believe), he writes that the climate crisis is already too far along to be averted, and that by 2100 the human population on the planet will have been reduced to 500 million due to food shortages, sea level rise, more extreme weather, among other things… The fact that there is probably no one else who understands planetary dynamics as well as Lovelock would be enough to convince me he wasn't just bull shitting us. But when you also factor in his history of skepticism about alarmist environmentalism… it is even more frightening.
buddhacious, no i haven't read Lovelock's book yet. it's on my reading list. but honestly, i'm not that excited to read it at this time due to its ultra-negative view on the Climate Change issue. i subscibe to the notion of complexity and chaos and the unpredicatability of things. so i groove more with the Black Swan than a vengeful Gaia :)
~C
I feel ya' C4. Lovelock is not exactly giving us a positive vision of the future, though he has said that he imagines the 500 million or so who remain alive in 100 years will live in exciting times. To be fair, though, Lovelock's Gaia theory is based on complexity science and chaos theory. I don't know that these approaches are about unpredictability so much as nondeterminism, difference being that our predictions cannot be exact but can be within the ball park so long as as many variables as possible are taken into consideration (which Gaia science/geophysiology does better than any other). Lovelock has admitted he could be completely wrong, and in fact he hopes he is.