[ RadSafe ] Re: Americans skeptical about alleged global warming "consensus"]

[Maury Siskel]

I think this topic is related significantly to Radiation Safety because 
the topic, I believe, will lead in time to a resurgence of nuclear power 
as a world source for electricity.

As an opinionated retired research scientist I've followed the climate 
topic seriously for quite a long time. The public opinion change has 
grown very slowly and gradually. Only a very small portion of the 
general public seems aware of the connection to the UN, few seem aware 
that IPCC is a UN agency, and fewer still know that the IPCC was 
conceived and developed by people associated with the WMO which is also 
associated with the UN.

It has become increasingly apparent that the IPCC and associated 
scientists have departed from a genuine science base for years. Seitz, 
Singer, and many others described in detail how this developed and has 
continued to grow. The AGW proponents have relied increasingly on 
mathematical/computer models and have built their case on results from 
model runs. They also did depend heavily upon empirical data gathered 
from world wide surface measurement stations which results have been 
shown to be badly flawed by urban heat island effects and other siting 
problems. Approximately 3000 stations in Russia no longer even report 
meassurements -- a rather serious dent in sample size.

The findings from model runs have long been at odds with empirical data. 
It takes longer to collect empirical data, but the publications have 
continued to swell making the discrepancies increasingly obvious. But 
all of this is a great illustration of the self correcting nature of 
genuine science. Hypotheses and theories are confirmed or modified or 
they die. Too many people are too proud to admit that they don't know 
(in the colloquial sense) yet. The political agenda of Maurice Strong 
was a terrible influence from the outset in the 1980s. The political and 
financial influences have become overwhelming as the doomsday nature of 
the topic has been more widely sold. I have often mentioned the Tulip 
Bulb Mania in this connection and I think it remains appropriate.

Maybe we are near or perhaps just passed the peak price of tulip bulbs. 
Opinions have huge political relevance, but are of little scientific 
significance.

======================
------  wrote:

>
> According to 
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming, 
>
>
>
> "Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant 
> disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.
>
> "While many advocates of aggressive policy responses to global warming 
> say a consensus exists, the latest Rasmussen Reports national 
> telephone survey finds that just 25% of adults think most scientists 
> agree on the topic. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.
>
> "But just in the last few days, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs 
> seemed to reject any such disagreement in a response to a question 
> about global warming, 'I don't think ... [global warming] is quite, 
> frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.'
>
> "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it's at least somewhat 
> likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support 
> their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five 
> percent (35%) say it's Very Likely. Just 26% say it's not very or not 
> at all likely that some scientists falsified data...
>
> "Americans have had their doubts about the science of global warming 
> for some time.
>
> "One reason for this skepticism may be the role the United Nations has 
> played in promoting the global warming issue. Only 22% of Americans 
> consider the UN to be a reliable source of information on global 
> warming. Forty-nine percent (49%) disagree and say the international 
> organization is not reliable on that topic. Twenty-nine percent (29%) 
> aren't sure..."
>
>  
>
> -------
>