Have we reached the "tipping point" of public opinion on global warming?

Question

Look at these two surveys older and newer. Note the change recently.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/329.php?nid=&id=&pnt=329&lb=hmpg1

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/412.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=412&nid=&id=

Has the growing scientific evidence finally convinced most people that this is serious?

(I'm tempted to include a funny remark about how successful Live Earth was, but I'll pass it up).

Mr Jello - Global warming is scientifically proven. Short medium and long versions of the proof below. Of course you'll need many hours to read the long one, which is the most conclusive. But the proof is clearly there. Even a brief read of Chapter 2 will show you a quality of scientific proof that utterly destroys the skeptics.

Consensus is not proof. But without proof, there would be no consensus. Scientists aren't real big on going by their gut.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Ron C - A few "skeptical" scientists does not show any loss of standing of global warming as real and mostly caused by us. The reverse is happening, scientists are more agreed than ever that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

A better guage of overall scientific opinion is the steady rise of certainty in the IPCC reports over time. And this is still true:

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

Answer 1

That does show a pretty good improvement from March to September of 2007.

It's hard to say what's been the convincing factor. There has been a bit more scientific evidence, but not a huge change from March to September. Perhaps people are beginning to see through the flimsy sketpical arguments, or perhaps the media is starting to do a better job of presenting the scientific evidence in an unbiased manner.

Regardless, it's good to see improvement in public acknowledgement of this issue.

Answer 2

the thought that AGW conspiracy theorists might additionally grow to be H1N1 conspiracy theorists is under no circumstances ideas-blowing. It could be a frightening international to stay in, believing that governments or perhaps scientists are able to pull off hoaxes on such an rather great scale. whilst a clean flu virus comes approximately, it has the flexibility to be very deadly and not locate particularly some organic resistance. maximum new strains are related to previous strains, so people have some organic resistance. H1N1 had no relation to any previous tension, and so people had no modern antibodies to it. it extremely is why it replaced into this way of enormous deal. added, the lethality of a flu needs to be predicted in strengthen, so as that there may be time for vaccines to be made. If it is not inflicting bodies to stack right this moment, it is an exceedingly distinctive difficulty in a million/2 a 365 days's time.the actuality that the virus is going to be passing with the aid of hundreds of thousands of folk over the subsequent 365 days skill the possibilities of a unfavorable mutation are extreme. They knew it replaced right into a hazard entering into, that it is going to possibly not become too deadly, yet fact in this way of difficulty replaced into impossible. They weighed their alternatives and that they acted. So no, i don't think of it is going to impression public opinion too plenty. With the two AGW and swine flue the information have been sufficient for any rational (study: not conspiracy-minded) individual to understand the justification for action. almost each and all of the H1N1 truthers have been possibly to have already been AGW deniers besides.

Answer 3

Amazingly global warming has gained the ascendancy in the political realm just as it is losing ground among scientists.

Recent work by Anthony Watts and his all-volunteer group has shown that about 50% of surface weather stations are not good quality stations. Some of them are built on top of parking lots! About 95% of poorly sited stations have a significant warming bias. The IPCC reports that global temps increased about .74C in the last century. Watts is still working on the project but it appears that about half of the reported warming is not real, just an artifact of poorly sited stations.
http://surfacestations.org

The problem of poor quality temp record has been known for a while. A few years ago, Roger Pielke proposed using ocean heat content as a better metric for measuring climate change. It has been used by both warmers and skeptics. Recently Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Laboratory has published a report on climate sensitivity using a combination of ocean heat content and the surface temp record. He estimates a climate sensitivity much less than the IPCC indicating the Earth will not have any catastrophe from global warming.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Of course, it makes sense that if temps have not gone up as much as thought that there must be a lower climate sensitivity. It is interesting these two facts are coming out at the same time.

Rest easy. The planet is going to be fine!

Answer 4

The earth does heat and cool in cycles but looking at the graphs, when CO2 concentrations go up, temperatures follow suit. The data since industrial revolution shows the CO2 levels almost 3 to 4 times the maximum previous peak and rising! Also in previous data, the CO2 peaks were relatively the same size. National Geographic this month goes over it.

Answer 5

Finally. . . .but I wouldn't credit the scientific evidence (though I'd like to)--that's been there for soe time. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the credibility of the "skeptics" (such as it was) was fatally damaged when Bush finally had to admit the facts--especially since he'd been caught censoring (falsifying) scientific reports.

Of course, this was inevitable--the facts are the facts and--in th elong run--that wins out. Its just sad--and possibly will prove disasterous--that we've had years of delay in taking action because of this nonsense.

Answer 6

For the last time...Global Warming doesn't describe anything! The phenomenon of climate change around the globe and its interconnected nature to the industrialization of modern society is WAY more complex than just saying everything is heating up because of Schwarzenegger's Hummer.

Climate Change is happening with or without human influence, so to try and disprove that our climate is changing is utterly foolish, but at the same time scientists are exceedingly hard-pressed to prove the negativity of human influence because the time-frame is just not there for a comprehensive analysis. That being said, the only value that anyone gains by denying that humans are negatively affecting the climate of Earth is political. Politically, it is important to oppose the issues that your opponents champion, which is how we have come to discussing such ridiculously inane topics as "Gay Marriage" or the "Right to Life (Terry Schiavo)" for terminally vegetative patients.

Neither of these issues directly affects any more than 2-3% of the American population, but because of the 30-second soundbyte culture of American media today we are not able to sustain any meaningful discussion on any of the important issues for everyone...the economy, the education system, our national energy/food/transportation infrastructure, the defunct health care system, and of course the environment. These are the real issues that affect everyone everyday, so yeah we've reached a tipping point on the "Global Warming" issue, but that doesn't mean that those politically opposed to championing that issue won't continue being retarded on purpose...just the way our cookie crumbles currently...

Answer 7

Ron C responded better than than I could.

But:

Perhaps Dr. James Baker at NOAA would like to explain why the surface warmed at a faster rate than the atmosphere, if the the atmosphere is supposed to be the cause of our warming. A very simple question that should have a very simple answer if so many brilliant people are 100% convinced they understand the interworkings of earths climate system.



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif

.
.

Answer 8

Good, but how much of that is just political correctness? it is common among surveys to reply in the way which is socially acceptable.

And then there's a huge education shortfall as all the questions on shopping bags around here show, They never ask about the contents of thier shopping bags..

Answer 9

Wow! How sad that the state of science is now based on opinion polls to determine facts.

What ever happened to objective science where science had to be tested and proved before it was accepted?

Added - Yea, I forgot that the CEO of Wal-Mart 'believes' global warming is true. It's not that he wants to sell more CF light bulbs, he just really cares about the environment.

I wonder how's the consensus about Ohm's law? Does a majority of scientist believe Ohm was right? Or can his work be proven by anyone who puts forth the effort?

Answer 10

Here in Australia, and back in the UK, most certainly, in that not only do most of us believe that it is real and happening, but also in that we have forced it up the agenda of political priorities.

We're all hoping the US is going to be a Tortoise and Hare story, c'mon guys. we're waiting for y'all to catch up!