Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 Next
Comments 107301 to 107350:
-
Phil at 21:54 PM on 10 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
The Ville @14 asks about emission. A CO2 molecule could "relax" from its excited state emitting a photon of IR, which would obviously be the correct frequency to be absorbed by another molecule: In more technical language: The rules that allow transitions between states in the molecule (known as "selection rules") apply to both absorption and emission. The molecule can also loose energy by collision with other molecules loosing its vibrational(IR) energy by dissipating it into smaller rotational and translational energy. As Riccardo states above, upward conversion of photons is unusual, so this pathway will not lead to photons that can be reabsorbed by CO2 vibrations. -
Paul D at 21:13 PM on 10 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
I'm not sure you would call it IR energy chris. The plant would retain some of the energy from a visible light photon and re-emit at a less energetic frequency, retaining some of the energy for the processes that it requires to produce glucose etc. -
RSVP at 21:11 PM on 10 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
Riccardo, Interesting article. Although it's hard to understand why Arrhenius himself did not take charge of experimentation and run these tests for himself. -
JMurphy at 20:58 PM on 10 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP, while you're eating, try not to worry about any fillings you might have that are 'polluted' with mercury, or that any fish you might be eating might be 'polluted' by lead from fishing-tackle. -
chris1204 at 20:47 PM on 10 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
Thanks Riccardo - so absorption is the key variable. Clearly then, in burning fossil fuel or biomass, we release IR energy which has been 'absorbed' via photosynthesis (some also sequestered via conversion to fossil fuel) but much more importantly release CO2 which increases absorption of further incoming IR which in remaining IR will cause increased temperature. Interesting looking at Hulbert to see how 'old' the science is. I guess for many folk it's all Climate 101 but it's helpful to get one's mind around the concepts. What's even more interesting is how little of this was in public consciousness back in the seventies (which was when I had my last formal exposure to physics). -
TimTheToolMan at 20:41 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@adelady, Actually your analogy is off. A soup on the stove heats by conduction and then convection whereas the ocean specifically doesn't heat by conduction/convection from the downward LW radiation. Thats why they did the experiment at all. There may be some amount of mixing down of the slightly warmer (but still colder than the bulk) skin due to the LW but according to the RC article, essentially the "warming effect" is one of reduced cooling rather than actual "warming". -
Paul D at 20:26 PM on 10 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
I like Kooiti Masudas description but have some questions: If you had pure CO2, would photons be emitted and absorbed between the CO2 molecules until a path out of the gas was found? Or is the photon frequency degraded when emitted, to a point where it is no longer the correct frequency to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule? -
kdkd at 20:25 PM on 10 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Glenn #29 Yeah, I'd love to see a public sin-bin, but I suspect that would have counterproductive consequences. -
RSVP at 20:19 PM on 10 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
#136, #137 Words influence perception, and this ultimately affects social action. For this reason, terminology can make a difference. As I dine, I will henceforth muse how my soft drink is "polluted" with CO2. -
Riccardo at 19:38 PM on 10 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
chriscanaris, the conversion of UV or visible photons to IR is mediated by absorption and heating of something, earth surface or molecules in the atmosphere. You cannot have (to first order) the "upward" conversion, like from visible to UV or IR to visible. The light from the sun contains UV and visible frequencies; the former is absorbed in the stratosphere by ozone, the latter reaches the ground. Both results in warming where they're absorbed. (On passing, Hulburt 1931 pointed out the essential role of ozone in determining the structure of our atmosphere). In a few words, frequencies that are not absorbed retain their characteristics; if they are absorbed, they produce warming and then increase the IR emission. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:35 PM on 10 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
Probably safe to say Chris' immediately local population statistics were not influenced by global warming, more a case of natural variability. :-) -
philipm at 18:22 PM on 10 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
I'm surprised he used 12 data points when 2 would have been just as authoritative. Steve Goddard obviously has no pride; this is by no means his first foray into obviously bogus pseudo science. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:21 PM on 10 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
kdkd @22 Perhaps, in an ideal blogosphere world, a deletions policy would show an 'audit trail' of what was deleted and why. However, see my comments to John about Functionality Creep. -
chris1204 at 18:20 PM on 10 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
I'm curious about one thing (evidence of my ignorance, no doubt). While energy is transmitted to the earth in a range of wavelengths, are we right to assume that the same energy retains the same wavelengths once in the troposphere? Presumably some UV energy may convert to IR energy and some visible light to UV. Does anyone have any idea of the extent radiation retains its wavelengths and how much if any impact this has on radiative transfer? For example, visible light becomes co-opted by photosynthesis into glucose which in turn powers the creation of complex carbohydrates, formation of proteins, etc, becoming dissipated through the biosphere. However, much of this would be potential energy which is presumably now in forms which would not affect our radiative budget greatly (or does it?). So what happens with visible light, UV light and other wavelengths? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:11 PM on 10 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
A possibility to improve our ability to follow-up on posts we have made and on-going dicscussions would be to tie reporting of comments to out past activity. Once I am logged in, new comments to threads that I have commented on would be useful. Also, possibly a reply option would be interesting. We can reply to comments rather that simply add more comments at the end. And I can then see all replies to my comments, even for quite old posts. This is important. Some serious comment trails can die just because the participants are only able to blog sporadicaly - my life being a case in point. To have the tools to carry on a slow motion conversation would be great, not just respond to the latest and greatest post. As an old IT guy, let me qualify these suggestions with the caveat. Welcome to the wonderful world of Functionality Creep! Keep up the good work man! -
johnd at 18:05 PM on 10 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
chris, all :-) :-) -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:01 PM on 10 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Huba Huba John A Really Nice Trend I Like at SS is the diversification of the sources of articles, not just the rebuttals of sceptic arguments. Compare that with the limited range of Authors at WUWT or JoNova for example. Dialog, rather than preachers at the pulpit. An interesting direction might be to invite 'civilised' sceptics to make posts.Response: After some email correspondance, I had invited one of our 'regular skeptics' to write a guest post but he baulked at the idea. In his defence, a number of people who've emailed me thoughts about climate have run from the room screaming when I suggested they write a guest blog post. -
chris1204 at 17:55 PM on 10 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
johnd, I wouldn't have a clue if it was an El Nino or La Nina - I was so climate illiterate then! Possibly the fact that my son was born means it must have been an El Nino while my next child was a daughter so you might just be right about the transition from an EL Nino to an El Nina. However, the hotel I'd checked into was called the Gateway which I thought was deeply symbolic - I passed :-) while my colleague who checked into a hotel called The Terminus failed :-(. All very pregnant with meaning :-) -
Doug Bostrom at 16:22 PM on 10 October 2010It's aerosols
This paper probably goes more to the heart of your ponderings, Karamanski: Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives As well, see: Uncertainties in climate stabilization -
Tom Loeber at 16:12 PM on 10 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Ah, I still can't post in that other thread. I wonder what is wrong with the data on this site that suggests all time record cold was recorded in the following countries during 2010: Cuba, Philippines, Russia, Namibia, Antarctica, Australia, Bolivia from http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm Maybe I am just interpreting that wrong? I mean, at first, I was thinking I was responding to the claim that record lows didn't happen in countries and then I see the claim appears to have shifted to record lows for within an entire country and not just locations. I just got to leave this alone. I find forums and message boards are not functional in general.Moderator Response: You are not banned from posting in any threads. You, and everyone else, have your comments deleted when they are off the topic of that particular thread. Most of the threads on this Skeptical Science site are narrowly focused on particular topics. You need to pay attention. -
kdkd at 16:12 PM on 10 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Something has gone wrong with the comments here... My comment #91 referrs to a different comment #90 from Albatross. I guess when albatross gets back we can salvage some sense with the help of moderators and reconstruct something that makes sense. In the mean time, from memory it seems that Albatross' regression model shows that there's no reasonable justification to perform a quadriatic fit, and that a linear fit is better suited to the data set. -
johnd at 15:51 PM on 10 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
chriscanaris at 15:35 PM, taking you mean 1988, of all the memorable events of that October, which would you attribute to the declining El-Nino and which to the emerging La-Nina. ;-) -
chris1204 at 15:35 PM on 10 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
Echoing Sphaerica, I've been carefully watching Sydney's deciduous plants - specifically frangipani and jacarandas. It may be just a subjective impression but they seemed to retain their leaves longer and while the frangipani lost all their leaves, many jacarandas seemed to retain leaf cover through winter. I know the jacarandas bloom earlier further north - I remember distinctly from an early October visit to Brisbane just twenty two years ago to be surprised to see the whole city in bloom. The visit and its timing were memorable for the fact that I passed my psychiatry exams in Brisbane and my son was born a few days earlier :-). Admittedly, I haven't made a conscious effort to watch the timing of the shedding and flowering before this year (but I've been inspired to do so by some of the posts on this blog). The difficulty of course lies in the fact that we tend to look out for anomalies when we worry that something may be going amiss. At any rate, I found evidence of earlier seasonal flowering in some settings here and delayed flowering in other settings here both attributed to warmer springtime conditions. Interesting times indeed. -
Tom Loeber at 15:35 PM on 10 October 2010It's freaking cold!
I am not denying global warming. I know there are record extreme heat events. That recent spell in Russia was horrible, tens of thousands died. I don't know what is going to happen. Is the tipping point going to be run away global warming? Some 90% of the time for the last million years the earth has been colder than now. The interglacials have been the exception, like minor perturbations. The most stable state appears to be colder than now. I think that finding that melting of the caps immediately preceded glaciation for the last two major swings is interesting. I think I posted it elsewhere, the thread where I think I am still disallowed to post. What is wrong with the Hamaker hypothesis? The noctilucents seem to be a strong indicator that it has merit. Hamaker was apparently unaware of them and yet, their growing in frequency and duration is alarming and greatly supporting John Hamaker's thesis. I think it was Doug who posted a link to a paper purporting to explain how they don't signify any concern of climate change, the one that only used 45 years of their record out of 125 to predict they are basically of no concern. In that paper it also said they have never reached as much extent as when they first appeared. That is totally false. What leads people to give false data, to support the climate change deniers? My understanding is that fossil fuel companies pay millions each year to promote propaganda to keep us from seeking a carbon neutral future. Seen the satellite pictures of the carbon dioxide release we are doing? Who would deny that is not changing the weather, the climate? All in all, I don't know what is going to happen. I do think there is a real possibility that without much warning or set trend, the climate could tip, tip drastically and very possibly to more cold. It appears to be like a higher energy phase state of the planet, triggered by global warming that does not correct itself for perhaps 100,000 years. I don't know. I think any one who says they know what the future holds is not adhering to science. Short term trends do not show tipping, do not show any proclivity for sudden change and yet, such has happened for the planet and they are liable to happen again. I, for one, am concerned enough to have two carbon neutral vehicles, to seek wind and photovoltaics for my electricity production, to farm my own food and live in a place that is recorded as having relatively stable weather right through ice ages. I will leave you to do what you want. I think it borders on being criminal to state you know what is going to happen rather than try to weigh evidence in an attempt to find most likely theories. I wish I were strong enough to get folks off the fossil fuel habit and start respecting this biosphere as our heritage and responsibility but I think we are oh so distracted by the need for money, by the need to make wars to secure the oil and the opium poppies to get more money. We lead a token existence.Moderator Response: Don't stuff a single comment with multiple topics, when some of those topics are off topic for the particular post at the top of that particular page. We will simply delete the entire comment--even the part that is on topic. You need to pay attention. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:33 PM on 10 October 2010It's aerosols
While it's not an answer to your questions, there's more useful background information on aerosols at How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling? See also treatments at RealClimate: An Aerosol Tour de Forcing Aerosol formation and climate, Part I Aerosol effects and climate, Part II: the role of nucleation and cosmic rays -
Kevin Hood at 15:33 PM on 10 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
One thought I'll offer is that you might want to consider moving the recent comments list to somewhere on the home page. Perhaps cut down the recent posts a little bit and then have a recent comments section right after it. The recent comments could just have the commenter name, the name of the post on which they are commenting and then the first sentence of their comment. This would mean that when readers first land here they would see both recent posts and recent comments simultaneously. This will keep threads not on the recent posts list alive by showing if people are still commenting on them. It seems to me that the number of comments submitted that the moderator notes would be more appropriate under a pre-existing post/thread has also increased of late. I believe this is because commenters feel that their comments only have currency if they are submitted under the most recent post. I understand that you have recent comments listed only one click removed from the home page, but each click is the equivalent of another ten mile drive down the information highway. Listing both recent posts and recent comments on the home page is a technique I have seen used in sites ranging from telemark skiing tips to other climate change discussions. It seems to work well for keeping old posts alive and for keeping comments under the appropriate thread. Just a thought. What you have created is outstanding, so this suggestion might be near or in the "Don't mess with success" category. But if you feel that you are telling people more and more often which threads would be more appropriate for their comments, you might give it a try.... Thanks for your superb work here and keep up the high standards. -
Kooiti Masuda at 14:35 PM on 10 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
(Excuse me for re-using something I have written elsewhere recently.) Even if absorption is saturated, it does not mean that the greenhouse effect is saturated. It is because molecules absorbing radiation are also molecules emitting radiation. As the concentration of absorber molecules increases, shorter geometrical depth of air becomes enough to attain "effectively full" absorption. Then, if we envisage the atmosphere consisting of "fully absorptive layers", the number of such layers increases. So the number of occurrence of absorption and re-emission increases in the pathway from the ground to the top of the atmosphere. The process results in larger difference of temperature between the surface and the height from where the upward emission escapes to outer space, i.e. greater greenhouse effect. Note that "re-emission" here does not mean that excited absorber molecules simply de-excite. Instead, the energy of absorbed radiation is transferred from absorber molecules to surrounding molecules (not usually absorbers), in other words, increases internal energy of air, or raising air temperature there. Then, part of internal energy is transferred to absorber molecules again, and then these molecules emit radiation according to the local temperature and emissivity of air (which is dependent on concentration of absorber molecules etc.). Thus, air cools by emission of radiation. Because internal energy is involved, greenhouse effect cannot be closed within a limited wavelength range. Radiative processes of all wavelength range (and also convective processes when relevant) must be taken into account together. (Therefore, the "fully absorptive layers" approximation is not useful for quantitative evaluation, regrettably.) -
archiesteel at 14:24 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM, this comment on the RealClimate thread (#28, from J.A. Smith) might help you understand this a little better: "As an oceanographer working on air/sea interaction and mixed layer dynamics, I hope I can clarify this issue somewhat (in fact, I’m at sea right now on the R/P FLIP, gathering data to study wave and mixed layer dynamics, but this is off the point). I think a major aspect of the balance has been glossed over: the ocean is heated mainly by the visible part of the spectrum, the energetic part of the sun’s glare. This penetrates several meters (blue-green can penetrate several 10’s of meters, particularly in the clear water found away from coasts). In contrast, the only paths for heat LOSS from the ocean are infrared (blackbody) radiation and latent heat (evaporation). The sun heats the uppermost few meters; this has to find its way to the actual very thin surface layer to be lost. In equilibrium, then, there is a significan flux toward the surface a few cm under, and the sense of flux from infrared alone has to be significantly upward. Given this, it is quite clear that any reduction in the efficiency of upward radiation (by, say, reflecting it right back down again), will have to be compensated for by increasing the air/sea (skin) temperature difference, hence having a warmer subsurface temperature. This still leaves aside the latent heat flux, which in general accounts for something like half the upward heat flux. The balance is NOT, as portrayed here, between up and down infrared; rather it is downward “visible” (including ultraviolet, even), versus upward NET infrared and latent heat fluxes. Once trapped in the mixed layer, any excess heat makes its way down into the interior via much larger scale processes, including lateral advection and mixed-layer deepening due to wind and wave induced motions. This large-scale vertical redistribution takes a while- decades to hundreds of years- before equilibrium is re-established. The fact that we can already see this is quite remarkable." -
archiesteel at 14:22 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TTTM, the point is that an increase in the temperature of the top of the skin layer will decrease the difference between it and the bottom of the skin layer, which reduces the heat flow from the ocean to the air above. In other words, the oceans will retains more The fact that the impact of CO2 seems small is deceptive, as the forcing is *added* to that of clouds. The small imbalance means that, on average, the oceans are retaining slightly more heat. -
johnd at 14:01 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TimTheToolMan at 13:43 PM, try running an anti-virus scan and see if it finds any unwanted cookies. -
TimTheToolMan at 14:01 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@johnd Yes, the experiment has some value to demonstrate the effect but you're right in that its not a definitive answer without understanding all the energies at the surface at the time of increased vs decreased LW radiation. Evaporation has the possibility to actually turn the result on its head and its simply not being measured in that experiment. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:58 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Thanks for the reference Tom. Perhaps you're right about "part two". In part one, however, He doesn't get around to addressing the question until the very last section where he briefly starts on conduction as a mechanism of heat transfer and at that point has totally ignored the fact the ocean has a cold skin so his conduction theory is trying to move energy from a colder place to a warmer one. -
johnd at 13:57 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TimTheToolMan at 13:37 PM, I understand what you are seeking in wanting the effect quantified. However I also see the relevance of the clouds being used in this particular experiment to simulate the effects of CO2 is that the clouds could alter the evaporation rate in that the lower loss of heat due to less evaporation could manifest itself as warming of the skin layer. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:43 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Sorry about the wierd posting. For some reason my broweser has refused to refresh until now and suddenly I've got all manner of reples not seen today. I'll go through each as I can. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:37 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
The effect is that of changed skin temperature which they have shown. The theory then goes... the result of that change is decreased heat loss from the ocean. It a two step thing. Simplistically, the skin warms and then the ocean heat cant "cross it" as effectively. What is now missing is the magnitude of the reduction of heat loss as a result of that skin heating. I only bring up the comparison between the LW radiation from the clouds vs LW radiation from CO2 to demonstrate that the effect they measured is very much larger than the effect of CO2. In practice this means that LW radiation from clouds changed the skin temperature by 0.2C whereas the effect of CO2 will be very much smaller than that, perhaps around 0.2/33 = 0.01C. Is that enough of a flux change to account for the ocean heating. Why does everyone think I'm trying to differentiate between different heating mechanisms of CO2 and clouds? Its only relevent to the magnitude of the effect. -
muoncounter at 12:56 PM on 10 October 2010It's freaking cold!
14: "6 reports all within the last 5 months " Look here, where all entries are accompanied by references. Of the 60 entries for all time high temperatures, there were 27 records set within this decade. Of the 60 entries for all time lows, only 2 record lows were set within the decade. Score: 27-2. How's your open-mindedness doing these days? -
Daniel Bailey at 12:54 PM on 10 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Re: Tom Loeber (12, 13) By keeping in mind the Comments Policy when posting (especially the part about posting on the appropriate thread), the vast majority of commenters avoid the Deleted Comments bin. The Yooper -
Karamanski at 12:34 PM on 10 October 2010It's aerosols
Is it possible that the IPCC underestimates the growth of aerosol concentrations from developing countries for the coming century? If aerosol growth is underestimated, then their temperature projections might be too high. And could the cooling effect of aerosols be stronger than climate models suggest? -
Tom Loeber at 12:30 PM on 10 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Oops. Here is that site I mentioned "Impacts & Causes of the Unusual Cold, Snowy & Stormy 2009~2010 Winter" http://sites.google.com/site/whythe2009winterissocold/ Well, look at that I am not banned but ask me, if I am not allowed to correct my mistakes and point out data that question assumptions here, does that demonstrate tolerance or open mindedness on the part of this web sites managers?Moderator Response: You tread dangerous ground here. From the Comments Policy:No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticize a person's methods but not their motives."
I judge this comment in violation of this, but to allow for you to see this and then have a chance to adjust future comments, will allow it to remain for a while. -
Karamanski at 12:30 PM on 10 October 2010It's El Niño
Isn't the El Nino Southern Oscillation showing a long term trend towards stronger and more frequent El Ninos because of global warming? Because I read a myriad of studies suggesting this. But in recent years that trend seems to be dissipating or is too short of a time period to make any meaningful judgements? Is this trend towards stronger and more frequent El Ninos truly manifesting itself or is it just a fluke of nature? -
Tom Loeber at 12:27 PM on 10 October 2010It's freaking cold!
I notice that LA international airport reported a record cold temperature recently, so did a number of place in San Diego county. Brazil also recorded an historical record cold. I came across 6 reports all within the last 5 months of record cold in a few countries and that does not go into the first half of this year. I don't readily see that mention of 140 year record cold in England. My mention of it is not that it happened but that I had seen it reported. I think this web site is interesting. Seems the data there is well corroborated. Yes, I was banned. Now, lets see if I still am as I hit the Submit button. -
Albatross at 12:25 PM on 10 October 2010It's methane
Karmanski @6, That graph needs to be updated:
[source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/]
-
Albatross at 12:21 PM on 10 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
John/moderator, please delete my posts 90 and 93 as they contain faulty information. Thanks. Sorry for the hassle. -
Karamanski at 12:20 PM on 10 October 2010It's methane
Methane concetrations have stalled int the atmosphere since approximately 1998. Have scientists figured out why? And is melting permafrost contributing enough methane to significantly raise its concentration in the atmosphere yet? -
Karamanski at 12:16 PM on 10 October 2010CO2 is not a pollutant
Another reason CO2 can be considered a pollutant is that it cools the stratosphere(cool stratospheric conditions promote ozone destruction), and delays the recovery of the ozone hole. Is it possible that CO2 could actually worsen the ozone hole? -
Albatross at 12:06 PM on 10 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
OK, I really should not be trying to do this when I am fighting a bug. The reason for me saying that should be obvious from the above data. -
Karamanski at 11:56 AM on 10 October 2010It's a 1500 year cycle
Dr. S Fred Singer should have check his work before spreading it. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that 1,500 year ocean cycle is causing warmining. When was the last time Dr. S Fred Singer published original research in a peer-reviewed journal? -
kdkd at 11:41 AM on 10 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Albatross #90 That would tend to indicate that a linear fit is better, although I wouldn't mind looking at the residuals to confirm that :) Either way it looks like BP's analysis is bogus. Best bet is to save the graphs as png or gif files and follow the instructions here -
Albatross at 11:28 AM on 10 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
In 90 I should have said that: "For the quadratic fit the slope of the 95% PI envelope increases with time". -
Roger A. Wehage at 10:30 AM on 10 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
Some excellent points above. John Cook summarized another source of the problem here. According to John's post, about three quarters of the news media and three quarters of the general public are not convinced or deny that humans are causing global warming. Since the numbers match so closely, I tend to think that public opinion is heavily influenced by the news media. News is just another part of our entertainment, so we tend to watch the type of news we agree with and enjoy. And if our newscasters are are not convinced or deny that humans are causing global warming, then it is likely that we are not convinced or deny that humans are causing global warming. Another contributor to the problem, at least in the United States, is that We Don't Care about important national and world issues, but only those little things that make us happy and save us money.
Prev 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 Next
