Tech | February 23, 2011 | 150 comments

Why are Americans so ill informed on the topic of climate change?

Image
JanforGore
As glaciers melt and island populations migrate from shores to escape rising seas, many scientists remain baffled as to why the research consensus on human-induced climate change remains contentious in the U.S.

The frustration revealed itself during a handful of sessions at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., this past weekend, and it came to a peak during a Friday session, “Science without borders and media unbounded.”

Near the session’s conclusion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel asked a panel of journalists why the media continues to cover anthropogenic climate change as a controversy or debate, when in fact it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association, National Research Council and the national academies of more than two dozen countries.

"You haven't persuaded the public," replied Elizabeth Shogren of National Public Radio. Emanuel immediately countered, smiling and pointing at Shogren, "No, YOU haven't." Scattered applause followed in the audience of mostly scientists, with one heckler saying, "That's right. Kerry said it."

A tone of searching bewilderment was typical of a handful of sessions that dealt with the struggle to motivate Americans on the topic of climate change. Only 35 percent of Americans see climate change as a serious problem, according to a 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

It's a given that an organized and well-funded campaign has led efforts to confuse the public regarding the consensus around anthropogenic climate change.

And in the absence of such a campaign, as in South Korea, there is no doubt about the findings of climate science, said Sun-Jin Yun of Seoul National University. All three of the nation's major newspapers—representing conservative, progressive and business perspectives—accept climate change with little unjustified skepticism.

Still, it is hard to explain the intransigence of the U.S. public and policy-makers on the issue.

Explanations: the media, under-education or denialism
Tom Rosensteil of the Project for Excellence in Journalism pointed the finger at the media, focusing on its overall contraction in the past two decades. Shrinking budgets have led to a proliferation of quick, cheap reporting, as well as discussion and commentary formats that rarely provide informative discussions of actual science results.

"What is shrinking is the reportorial component of our culture in which people go out and find things and verify things," he said. Truth has little chance to make itself known in the new narrow and shallow public square.

Poll after poll, and even late night TV, seems to revel in Americans’ ignorance of basic scientific facts, including the fundamentals of physics and biology.

Is this "deficit model" then the reason for our failure to accept climate change? Naomi Oreskes, a University of California, San Diego, science historian rejected that hypothesis that during a session on climate change denialism. "It's quite clear there are many highly educated people who do not accept global warming," she said. Still, scientists "must communicate climate science as clearly and effectively and robustly as we can," she added.

The current political and cultural context drive the nation's denialism around climate change, evolution and vaccines, said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, during a session. Education and scientific literacy and general intelligence levels are not causing the problem.

Meanwhile, most Americans in fact are ignorant of the facts of climate science and even "confuse climate change with the ozone hole," Schmidt remarked. The processes around the latter's disappearance are related to global warming but "how is that a basis for having any sensible conversation?" he asked.

Solutions: Smart talking and media mastery
Surveys show that most people want more information about climate science, Schmidt said, so scientists should engage in public forums such as blogs, question-and-answer sessions and public talks, provided they are not simply stacked with angry debaters.

Scientists must engage with the public and be vigilant against projecting stereotypes of their profession—such as the elitist, arrogant scientist, Schmidt said.

Rosensteil echoed this advice and further urged scientists to bypass the media, who are no longer critical intermediaries for reaching the public given the growth of the blogosphere and the general fragmentation of the industry.


cont.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Current Tonight,   15 more
  2. tags:
    Politics Environment Religion Climate Change 21 more
  3. recommended by:
    WakeUpPeople
  4.     
    |

150 comments // Why are Americans so ill informed on the topic of climate change?

  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • I think that the proposition that Climate Change is a problem is misleading. Generally speaking, the use of the term "Problem" implies that it is something that has some sort of solution, or is something or another that can be "Solved". I get very highly suspicious whenever I hear someone use the words "Solve" and "Climate Change" together in the same sentence.

      While I myself do agree that there can be no doubt as t whether or not Human beings are now contributing to the Warming Trend aspect of Climate Change; I do believe that is to fall prey victim to a ubiquitous logical fallacy of rational reasoning to assume that, merely because a factor happens to be CONTRIBUTING to an any given process, that this then must mean that the aforementioned contributing factor has enough sufficiently substantial influence and sway over the said process in order to then have the capability to put an end to the process to which it contributes.

      "The tombstone of the “Reverse Climate Change” movement will likely read “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc”, meaning “After, Therefore Because of it.” The basic argument goes like this: The Earth’s temperature warms after we emit carbon dioxide. Therefore, the temperature must be warming because we emit the carbon dioxide."

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

      Just because we may very well be CONTRIBUTING to one aspect (the Warming Trend) of the much larger process of global Climate Change, does NOT, in any way, shape, or form mean that we have the power to STOP Climate Change altogether.

      The truth is that a forever-changing global climate is NOT, in fact, a "Problem" that needs to be "Solved". It is, rather instead, merely just a REALITY that we, the human race as a species, now must ADAPT in order to cope with.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • It is by far and away, above and beyond all else, the human race's capability to adapt to widely varying and constantly changing environments that has allowed our species to spread and expand, much like some highly contagious infectious pandemic plague, to inhabit every single last biome and biosphere known t exist on this Planet Earth.

      It was what permitted our ancient prehistoric ancestors to leave their birthing cradle of sub-Saharan central equatorial Africa, and to brave the harsh and inhospitable climates of the frozen wastes of Northern and Western Europe while the Continent was still very much in the grip of the midst of the last great Ice Age well over one hundred thousand years ago.

      It is that extraordinary capability for adaptation that we as a modern civilization must now harness within ourselves and to apply to the inevitable an inexorable, unalterable changing of a global Climate in a state of constant and highly erratic flux.

      Our species survived to whether the last Great Ice Age that ended twelve thousand years ago; we can and we must brace ourselves for the next abrupt and drastic shift in our Planet's global climatic system.

      There is nothing we can do to stop it or to prevent it.

      The best that we can do is to be prepared, be ready, and to adapt.

      "People can do nothing to somehow stop it, prevent it, or reverse it. We can no more do so than we can walk on water. (Although, you know, there was this one guy, this one time, a long time ago…) And efforts to do so are, and I do not know how else to put this, a waste of time."

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

    • 2 years ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Doing nothing with regards to our Planet's constantly changing global Climate will result in the extinction of our species just as surely as standing in the middle of an open field, or on the peak of a high mountaintop during an electromagnetic storm will get you struck by a bolt of lightning.

      However, any and all vain attempts to "prevent", "end", "stop", or "reverse" global climate change are misguided and will inevitably ultimately prove to be fruitless and futile. We can no more put an end to or stop climate change than one can outrun a cyclonic tornado twister on foot.

      The only way to survive either an electrical storm or a tornado would be to find shelter, either in a stably constructed building or deep underground.

      Our efforts in regards to Global Climate change should therefore most certainly not be towards the direction of trying in vain to prevent or reverse it, but rather what we should, by all rational reason, be focused on instead are the many varied ways that our civilization can ready and prepare itself for the effects of a constantly changing global climate, as well as how it is that we can best adapt to the more dramatic and drastic shifts in the climate when and where they do occur.

      By far an away the best way to both prepare and to adapt to abrupt shifts in climate patterns would be able to accurately predict, to the best of our ability when and where such events may occur.

      Another highly effective method of preparation involves autonomy and independence.

      If we are unexpectedly cut off from the rest of our global society, we can I'll afford to still be utterly and wholly dependent on far remote parts of the globe to supply everything from the food we eat and the clothes we wear to the fuel we use to heat our homes. This, in its turn, also incorporates making the places where we live and where we work more hospitable to life and to habitation, which precipitates eliminating contamination and pollution from our air, ground, and water. It also would involve preserving sufficiently substantial biodiversity, both of land animals and terrestrial plants as well ad in the Earth's Oceans; so as to guarantee that abrupt and drastic shifts in the Planet's climate do not render our home world a uninhabitable, inhospitable, barren, desolate, and lifeless ball of rock hurtling through the emptiness of the void of space.

      "Human actions and interventions that interfere significantly with the patterns of the natural ecosystems, such as causing the extinctions of hundreds or thousands, even millions of species by destroying the rainforests, may, however, amplify and distort changes that will occur in the natural matrix of life on the planet."

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

      The only feasible way reverse climate change would be to quite literally turn time back around on itself, and everything that presently believe that we think we know how ho our universe works renders that option implausible. There is, however, a perfectly plausible way for us that we could put an end to climate change once and for all, that being to put an end to the climate itself. Unfortunately, this alternative would require us to eliminate the atmosphere of our Planet Earth, which would in turn make our own home world uninhabitable; and I for one do not believe that would really "Solve" very much of anything, really.

      If we want to live on this planet, then that then means that we are pretty much stuck with the atmosphere we've already got. And for as long as there as been an atmosphere, there has been a climate; and for as long as there has been a climate, the climate has been changing; and I do not think that it is ever at all likely to stop any time in the remotely foreseeable future.

      The reality of the matter is that the Planet Earth's climatic systems have always been in state of continuous flux since the first of our Planet's three or four historical atmospheres first developed; And the climate will forever continue to change for the even remotely foreseeable future, until our Solar System's star expands to engulf the innermost Planets orbiting it.

      On this grand scale, the present and recent Warming Trend we have been observing over the past two hundred years, and which is no doubtless currently being contributed to by the recent industrial activities of our modern globalize Human Civilization, is but a minute and minuscule blip on the figurative monitor screen, as is the twelve thousand years or so that Human society has eve been in existence.

      To believe, even for one singular solitary instant, that we can somehow stop, put an end to, or even REVERSE a process that has progressed for eons before we first appeared, and which will continue to persist and carry on for many Billions of years long after the Human Race has become extinct on this Earth; is arrogance and avarice in it's most extreme.

      "I wonder why human beings, and unfortunately, Americans in particular, have such a deep-seated need to make themselves be responsible for everything, good or bad, a list that runs the gambit from saving the Earth to changing global climate. This desire for culpability exceeds beyond any religion, and is more something approaching mass-psychosis..." "...This desire to be responsible for something which, most scientists agree, will have dire consequences for nearly all of human society, is as mystifying as it is misguided, the idea behind this conception of culpability being to rouse our supposedly placid society into strong action."

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

    • 2 years ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Question: "Is Global Climate Change Real?" (Is it Happening?) OR to put it in other words: "Is the Global Climate changing?"

      Answer: YES. There can be no doubt.

      Question: Is Global Climate Change a "Problem" (one that needs to be "Solved")?

      Answer: NO

      The reality of the matter is that Climate Change is no more a problem than is Universal Gravitation, Electromagnetism, or Natural Selection. All three are natural processes, all three can be contributed to by Human interference with the natural world, and all three can, do, and will have "inconvenient" detrimental side effects to our precariously unstable Human society. All of the Forces that govern the Processes of the Natural world have undesirable, unsettling, disturbing, disquieting, and inconvenient side affects.

      Sir Isaac Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation pulls meteors and Asteroids, some the mass and volume of Mount Everest, others the side and approximate dimensional measurements of the state of Texas, toward the Planet Earth, drawing into a flight path headed straight directly for us. I myself find that very disquieting indeed.

      So... Question: "Is Gravity A Problem that we must now solve?"

      Answer: Of course not.

      Just as an example, Due in no small part to the power of the forces of Electromagnetism; every time that our Sun "Burps" [Known as a "Coronal Mass Ejection", or Solar Flare], any and all electronic devices from Satellites in orbit to computers, radios, and televisions used by people in particularly vulnerable areas all around the globe can and do greatly interfere and disrupt haywire on the fritz; this resulting from the Planet Earth being in the direct path of super-massive wave upon wave of the stream of highly charged subatomic particles of potent deadly lethal cosmic radiation. Just the merest thought of that disturbs me greatly. On the other hand, such events also precipitate the occurrence of what I myself can personally attest to be one amongst the most beautiful sights that this world has to offer; the Aurora Borealis, or "Northern Lights".

      So... Question: "Is Electromagnetism a Problem to be solved?"

      Answer: Most definitively NO.

      The Darwinian Process of Descent with Modification via Natural Selection [Known as "Evolution"] concluded many billions of years of selection, culminating in the production of the Platypus: A North American Beaver with the Tail of a Muskrat, the bill of a duck, and poisonous spiny barbs on its webbed toes, which happens to lay eggs like a bird or reptile.

      The process of Descent with Modification through Natural Selection, known in shorthand as Evolution, has produced a nearly hairless bipedal terrestrial primate with a relatively large brain for its body size, but with relatively very poor olfactory and auditory senses as well as visual acuity when compared to other mammalian species. The ape's heavy dense bones do not permit flight and greatly hinder its swimming capabilities, and it's mostly hairless and thin (easily punctured) skin and fleshy musculature make it vulnerable susceptible to the elements in harsh environments, necessitating its constant construction of artificial housing structures to live in.

      An inconvenient truth if ever I saw one, and, to me, a profoundly unsettling one at that.

      So... Question: "Is Evolution a Problem?"

      Answer: NO. Definitely Not.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • +1
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • The outstanding unanswered question of whether or not it is even possible or plausible for us to put an end to Global Climate Change notwithstanding, our vain and futile, and therefore thus far fruitless, attempts to do so raises what would seem to me to be a self-evidently obvious question; that being: "Do we even want to?" That is, would we desire to stop or prevent the Global Climate from changing, even if we could? The blatantly evident answer is NO.

      If the climate had never changed, then life, as we know it on this planet Earth would never have existed.

      Once more again, I feel I must reiterate: The only way to put an end to Global Climate Change would be to put an end to the Global Climate. The only way to eliminate the Global Climate would be to rid the Planet Earth of its atmosphere.

      Here's the catch: Getting rid of the Earth's atmosphere would kill every single last living thing on the whole entire Planet Earth, instantaneously. And since that would then include the human species twelfth as well, this would not really "Solve" much of anything at all.

      So, I ask again: Even if it were possible, would we even want to stop climate change, even if we could?

    • 2 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
    • 0
      Denica_Cassandra  
    • "but it iz so cold right now...how can it b global warmin'?" LOL Extreme weather people.. :) There is a host on the station I am on who thinks that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory that does not exist. I never really get WHY he thinks that - but it seems like it has been repeated enough to flow into the main stream. :(

    • 2 years ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • -1
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • I think that the proposition that Climate Change is a problem is misleading.
      Generally speaking, the use of the term "Problem" implies that it is something that has some sort of solution, or is something or another that can be "Solved".
      I get very highly suspicious whenever I hear someone use the words "Solve" and "Climate Change" together in the same sentence.
      While I myself do agree that there can be no doubt as t whether or not Human beings are now contributing to the Warming Trend aspect of Climate Change;
      I do believe that is to fall prey victim to a ubiquitous logical fallacy of rational reasoning to assume that, merely because a factor happens to be CONTRIBUTING to a any given process, that this then must mean that the aforementioned contributing factor has enough sufficiently substantial influence and sway over the said process in order to then have the capability to put an end to the process to which it contributes.
      Just because we may very well be CONTRIBUTING to one aspect (the Warming Trend) of the much larger process of global Climate Change, does NOT, in any way, shape, or form mean that we have the power to STOP Climate Change altogether.
      The truth is that a forever-changing global climate is NOT, in fact, a "Problem" that needs to be "Solved".
      It is, rather instead, merely just a REALITY that we, the huma race as a species, now must ADAPT in order to cope with.
      The reality of the matter is that the Planet Earth's climatic systems have always been in state of continuous flux since the first of our Planet's three or four historical atmospheres first developed;
      And the climate will forever continue to change for the cen remotely foreseeable future, until our Solar System's star expands to engulf the innermost Planets orbiting it.
      On this grand scale, the present and recent Warming Trend we have been observing over the past two hundred years, and which is no doubtless currently being contributed to by the recent industrial activities of our modern globalized Human Civilization, is but a minute and minuscule blip on the figurative monitor screen, as is the twelve thousand years or so that Human society has eve been in existence.
      To believe, even for one singular solitary instant, that we can somehow stop, put a end to, or even REVERSE a process that has progressed for aeons before we first appeared, and which will continue to persist and carry on for many Billions of years long after the Human Race has become extinct on this Earth; is arrogance and avarice in it's most extreme.

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • Ian_Judge_Lord:

      You may be right. Should we not then proceed forward with plans that protect our forests , air, and water; which are vital to our survival? Pollution is still ravaging the health of many large communities around the earth, and as we have proved through our nuclear arrogance, a large scale mistake does affect the whole environment.

      There is no going back but there are different ways forward. Any thoughts?

    • 2 years ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • +1
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Image
    • treewolf39:

      "I wonder why human beings, and unfortunately, Americans in particular, have such a deep-seated need to make themselves be responsible for everything, good or bad, a list that runs the gambit from saving the Earth to changing global climate.

      This desire for culpability exceeds beyond any religion, and is more something approaching mass-psychosis.

      On the former point, they seem to think that it is up to them to save the planet, as some sort of massive undertaking or courageous, triumphant quest. This view, that they and they alone are burdened with the duty to save the Earth from destruction, blatantly ignores the fact that it is, in fact, they who are putting the survival of the planet at risk to begin with.

      As to my latter point, human beings, and, almost as perplexing, Americans in particular, demonstrate a desire, almost a need, to be responsible, and indeed culpable; to have caused, any change in the Earth’s environment; and, more specifically, the climate..."

      "...This desire to be responsible for something which, most scientists agree, will have dire consequences for nearly all of human society, is as mystifying as it is misguided, the idea behind this conception of culpability being to rouse our supposedly placid society into strong action."

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

    • 2 years ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • +1
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Image
    • treewolf39:

      "People can do nothing to somehow stop it, prevent it, or reverse it. We can no more do so than we can walk on water. (Although, you know, there was this one guy, this one time, a long time ago…) And efforts to do so are, and I do not know how else to put this, a waste of time.

      Human actions and interventions that interfere significantly with the patterns of the natural ecosystems, such as causing the extinctions of hundreds or thousands, even millions of species by destroying the rainforests, may, however, amplify and distort changes that will occur in the natural matrix of life on the planet.

      The tombstone of the “Reverse Climate Change” movement will likely read “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc”, meaning “After, Therefore Because of it.” The basic argument goes like this: The Earth’s temperature warms after we emit carbon dioxide. Therefore, the temperature must be warming because we emit the carbon dioxide."

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

    • 2 years ago
  • tomretterbush
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  
    • the wanting of the unwilling to acknowledge reality is at the crux, supplemented by the likes of the Koch Bros. who spend tens of millions to keep the unwilling uniformed

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • JaneBond007
    • 0
      JaneBond007  
    • "Being ill int he issue of climate change is really a big issue due to being stubborn of many companies and chemist who sabotage nature... in this country, many Chemists that are inside the Coal_fired Power Plant sabotage their own company even those Accountants due to money, power and fame.

      They stole accounts and control the companies not just they are there because of cruelty due to drug addiction and free trade sex not just due to prostitution... one of them is Mauban Coal-Fired Power Plant who stole names and identities of others that was used to stole and sabotage many countries."-PWker

    • 2 years ago
  • kvb1
    • 0
      kvb1  
    • When you get people saying that there can't be climate change because they got record snows, it is almost impossible to explain to them who weather works because they have no way of relating that. We have damaged this country so much because of our under funding education, specifically math and science. They have no understanding that increased temps cause more moisture in the atmosphere that must come back down somewhere. If it was not snow, it would be rain.

    • 2 years ago
  • Camille_Jackson
    • 0
      Camille_Jackson  
    • The real reason they don't want to fully inform the nation is because once they know the damages and the harsh effects it will have on our daily lives people will start to panic, cause massive possible riots and chaos in the hierarchy we have fought to establish.

    • 2 years ago
  • Camille_Jackson
    • 0
      Camille_Jackson  
    • The real reason they don't want to fully inform the nation is because once they know the damages and the harsh effects it will have on our daily lives people will start to panic, cause massive possible riots and chaos in the hierarchy we have fought to establish.

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • Weedy_Seadragon
  • treewolf39
    • +1
      treewolf39  
    • Weedy_Seadragon:

      I really want to see the other side debate. I hate pollution but I have gotten no where pointing out the pain it causes humanity. I just want it to stop so I am trying to engage the lovely people who think there is no cause and effect. Pretty sad actually.

    • 2 years ago
  • noxidereus
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +2
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • You'll read below where I get out my whippin stick and lay into a few folks.
      Really though... I like the laughs more than The Wrath of Kahn thing. Normally I don't pay attention to the global warming chatter because it boils my blood. But it appeared here, on Current TV, so I lost my patience.

      Anyway, someone posted this video somewhere else on a conversation thread.
      It's my kind of fall outta the chair gallows humor...

    • 2 years ago
  • mitekillem
  • coolplanet
    • 0
      coolplanet  
    • mitekillem:

      Why man-made not so much?
      Because man is not that significant?
      Or man couldn't possibly do that much damage???
      Science shows that man is the leading contributor of greenhouse gasses, along with his livestock and agricultural practices.
      In the past 100 years alone we have burned about a billion years of sequestered hydrocarbons!
      Until we face the real significance of our gluttony and waste seven billion strong we are still in serious denial......

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • Mark701
    • +4
      Mark701  
    • It should come as no surprise that in a country where corporations have more power than politicians, there is still debate over this issue.

    • 2 years ago
  • Wicks934
    • +3
      Wicks934  
    • People are in a state of denial, because climate change is an inconvenient truth. If climate change could be resolved by throwing troops at it, they would accept it as fact. We humans can be quite lazy in our thinking and our actions, when asked to change the status quo.

    • 2 years ago
  • Arizona_Huey
    • +9
      Arizona_Huey  
    • Sadly, those who profit from polluting our environment are the ones pumping money into trying to discredit science. Big oil, coal, and natural gas money fund politicians and give them talking points to burp out. Throw in the fact that a vast majority of Americans are grossly ignorant and lazy, and you've magically solved the riddle.

    • 2 years ago
  • tommic
    • +2
      tommic  
    • Image
    • www.oildecline.com worth the read, climate change is real its going to continue and humans are going to be reactive not proactive. Which in the end will cost the human race trillions of dollars later for our failure to act now. The Chinese Gov't has just penned a deal with Columbia to build a rail from Bogata to the Pacific port to move coal reserves mined to be moved to the Pacific coast so they can ship it back to China to burn in their coal powered power plants that go online to the rate on one per week.

    • 2 years ago
  • thedirtman
    • +2
      thedirtman  
    • To put it as concisely as possible - the people behind the microphone and the on the airwaves are typically clueless. There is a sort of art today in sounding like we know everything, when in fact we know very little or almost nothing. Turn on your radio, your television, or blog and you will find someone who doesn't know. So what do media hosts do? Most simply produce some entertaining conclusion, like Rush Limbaugh. Others answer the question by interviewing someone else that doesn't know. Second, they might provide debate between two or four people who do not know. FWIW, here are my top three reasons what constructive information gathering on climate change talks might involve, but is sorely lacking:

      1. Having someone on who knows what they are talking about.

      2. Taking more than three minutes time for explanation.

      3. Having someone on who wants to get at the truth.

      Here, Larry King violates all three of these. Listen to this one joker, my case example:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIBSKk0b3Zo

    • 2 years ago
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +5
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • "You haven't persuaded the public," replied Elizabeth Shogren of National Public Radio. Emanuel immediately countered, smiling and pointing at Shogren, "No, YOU haven't." Scattered applause followed in the audience of mostly scientists, with one heckler saying, "That's right. Kerry said it."

      There it is. The climate scientists have done their job, reporters and media have not done theirs. Unless you consider the amount of money spent on disinformation.

      There is a "paid for campaign" to misdirect and misinform. You could and can look at your politician and news directors and ask, "How much have you taken to look the other way?"

      And I will say, " I hope you enjoy your graft and pay-off as you watch your children cry in their empty glass of milk. Welcome to your future, welcome to all our futures."

    • 2 years ago
  • savroD
    • +2
      savroD  
    • You can see my comment on the, "It's the inequality, stupid"; however, the state, as well as reward for being a scientist or engineer in this country is terrible. Take heart teachers, firemen, and nurses that we are in the same boat you are; and, we, at least the truly honest and knowledgable ones of us, are with you!

    • 2 years ago
  • wally60
    • +2
      wally60  
    • i talked to a friend the other day just happenes to be a republican .doesnt believe humans are doing anything to the planet the right gets there info from rush and the other nutty people out there. i told him to look at the population around the world and think again.he thinks god is creating the weather to punish man.humans are screwed there
      arnt enough sane ones out there

    • 2 years ago
  • Weedy_Seadragon
  • wally60
  • LivingPong
    • +2
      LivingPong  
    • Well done, this is a very important topic.

      I think one of the reasons is a very small percentage of media in the US is foreign, making it hard for many to get an idea of global opinion. We have a much higher percentage of foreign media in Australia, although we have only a fraction of the number of media outlets in comparison to the US.

      We still have many of the same problems here. I have seen opinion shift here a lot over the last year. At first people were becoming aware of climate change, then it a matter of months the argument changed.

      You could see the shift in direction on the internet too. Suddenly intelligent people began to deny there was any problem. Many different theories began appearing, revealing a concerted effort to confuse and mislead the public with a barrage of information.

      There does seem to be a growing awareness of the issue taking place again, likely due to the many recent severe weather events that took place around the world. Media groups in Australia are beginning to ask what is going wrong with our weather. Climate scientists were warning of the likelihood of increased severe weather events, but misleading comments from politicians, businessmen and social commentators drew attention away from the warnings and shifted attention to discrediting or ignoring the science instead.

      Now that natural disasters and challenging environmental conditions have an increased economic cost, climate change is back on the agenda again, hopefully it will stay there this time.

    • 2 years ago
  • August_K
    • +2
      August_K  
    • Skimmed through the comments and didn't see these guys mentioned.......on this page anyway. You'll recognize the name and probably won't be surprised.

      "Billionaire tycoon David Koch likes to joke that Koch Industries is, "The biggest company you’ve never heard of". But the nearly US$50 million that he and his brother Charles quietly funneled to front groups which deny that climate change is a problem is no joking matter. Our new report shows how that cash, between 1997 and 2008, went to groups working to prevent action being taken against climate change.

      Wanted for crimes against the climate: Charles and David Koch.

      It's now crystal clear - and every journalist, scientist and politician needs to know - that denial of climate change is not something based on healthy scientific skepticism and debate: it is manufactured and bears the "Koch" brand.

      To put their financial commitment into context, from 2005-2008 the Koch brothers pumped in double the amount that even Exxon spent on undermining climate action over the same period.

      If you thought Exxon was bad, take a look at these guys:

      Charles and David have a vested interest in preventing climate action: they’ve made billions from Koch Industries, an oil and manufacturing giant that is the second largest privately-held company in America with tentacles extending around the globe. It’s time more people were aware of the brothers Koch and just what they’re up to.

      The Greenpeace report “Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine” reveals the connections between the Koch family, their employees, and a global network of ‘front groups’ engaged in trying to sabotage climate science."

      Continued here : http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/dirty-money-climate-300...

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • Weedy_Seadragon
  • Nephwrack
  • coolplanet
  • Nephwrack
  • dreaddaze
  • slippyt
  • Weedy_Seadragon
  • slippyt
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +3
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • slippyt:

      I see you do not "get" it.
      You are funny for even thinking forever is somewhere down the track.
      It isn't.
      It's so close, it's breathing down and beating everyone on the head.
      The problem is, so many people can take the beating without flinching.
      We have arrived at too damn bad, too damn late.
      So, gallows humor leaves me with funny when I see comments like yours.

      I've lost the tolerance for stupid. I'm feelin The Wrath of Kahn. When stupid rears its ugly head, I take a 2 x 4 and whack it.

      Here's the thing
      everyone today is revisiting what took place in the 60's, the environmental awareness and overpopulation issues. You're all 50 years too late.

      There's a principle in physics called inertia. Today, here, NOW, we have arrived at ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere where, if you pulled the plug on EVERY single source of carbon emission, including natural, it would take 30 years before a reversal of ppm would take place.

      There is a chain-reaction happening. We are in stage 2. The melting of the arctic permafrost is releasing ancient carbons that have been locked away and methane hydrates are being freed. Methane is 20x greenhouse gas trapping over CO2.

      Now do you get the picture?
      Now do you see why I am laughing?

    • 2 years ago
  • IceKat
  • coolplanet
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +4
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • IceKat:

      IceKat wrote:
      Tell me why the planet isn't warming at the moment.
      Tell me why satellite data shows a decline in global temperatures over last year,
      and a substantial fall in temperatures this year?

      Well Crazy Kat, I cannot tell you what is not true.
      And you certainly cannot prove what you just asked to be verified.
      You can get false information all over the internet.
      But, you will NOT get peer-reviewed climate scientist information to support
      your... crap.

      As it stands now, among the 3,000 + climate scientists globally, 90% + agree
      that the earth is warming, this year is the hottest global mean temperature on
      record and man is the biggest contributor to green house trapping gas emissions.

      Now, go drink a lot of alcohol, and please, die, so the rest of humanity can be
      relieved of your kind of stupid, annoying claptrap.

    • 2 years ago
  • IceKat
  • tommic
    • +2
      tommic  
    • Weedy_Seadragon:

      Its nice to know its not just me who cannot stand those unspeakable people who deny, deny, deny and produce information so carefully culled to support their position that they should have worked for George W. Bush. Its called credibility, you have it, or you don't.

    • 2 years ago
  • Weedy_Seadragon
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +1
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • tommic:

      Ya. I've lost the plot of compassion for a few of gods creatures. I have fallen into the pit of hate for Republicans and the IceKat's of the world. Their kind of "creature" is so repellent to my senses, I have to watch where I go.

      It's so easy to find credibility on any subject. You read the studied experts.
      That's it. Done. Everyone else is opinion noise. Worthless.

    • 2 years ago
  • slippyt
    • 0
      slippyt  
    • Weedy_Seadragon:

      I understand now. Sorry I didn't before. You didn't have to be disrespectful in the message, though. Whacking "stupid" with a 2 X 4 isn't going to win anyone over to your viewpoint. I may not be as informed on this issue, but I'm definitely more informed (on this) than most people I know. You gotta meet halfway with the stupidity! Let's see if you can reply to this without insulting me..?

    • 2 years ago
  • thefewbutproud
  • EthicalVegan
  • FLeggplant
    • +8
      FLeggplant  
    • Well, this is a question with so many answers...
      Lack of Education, Immaturity, Denial, Stubbornness, Stupidity, Religious extremism, Hatred for anyone who uses their brain, cares about the Earth or the future, willful ignorance, selfishness, apathy, misinformation...and on and on and on...

      I know someone who is a Gay, Female, Republican.
      Now, if no one can convince her that Republicans despise Women and Gay people, she certainly can't be convinced of Climate Change. We have talked about it and she absolutely believes climate change is a joke and a leftist plot to raise taxes. Sounds familiar huh?

      Some people are just too mired in their own self-serving attitudes to see anything that doesn't directly effect the small bubble in which they live their lives.

    • 2 years ago
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +2
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • FLeggplant:

      That bubble is going to burst loud and painfully... soon.
      The IPCC 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports make that clear. Extreme flooding and extreme drought.

      Southern Russia's wheat crop has failed. China's wheat crop has failed. And, since cyclone Larry hit Australia in 2006, it has been one flooding season after another since. Food is going to start becoming rare within the next 5 years.

      The cost for her to go out and "get a bite" is going to wake her ass up.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • Weedy_Seadragon
  • coolplanet
    • 0
      coolplanet  
    • Weedy_Seadragon:

      I agree with you. I was part of the 60s counterculture and still do all I can to fight poisoning the Earth -- now mainly by planting and tending hundreds of trees (sequoias which are carbon suckers and the fastest growing evergreen).
      Yet I consider my generation to be a huge failure! Sure some of us still protest and sign petitions. We get on line and complain a lot.
      But for the most part I see little direct action being taken.

    • 2 years ago
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +1
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • coolplanet:

      Good on ya Cool Planet.
      When I looked at the panorama of possibilities for my life when i was 18,
      I made a clear and present choice. I would not reproduce. I would be
      conscious of what I put in my pie hole. And, I would walk and roller skate
      and ride my bike.

      I do drive. It's a 2-cylinder (it's a very kick ass bike. I built from the round up)
      I was not built to teach. So, what can a body do? Me? I went out and played.
      I've played like nobodys business. For 40 years, whitewater kayaking, skiing,
      racquetball, and, as a coast into landing for old age, I played World Association
      Croquet.

      I traveled all over, living in warehouses, basements of buildings, top floors
      of commercial spaces, and, the coup d'etat of living scenes, the mens
      locker room of a high school that was taken over by the grade school.
      ( I did spaces instead of housing because I was an artist, a painter. )

      But, also, too and however, I do not consider the counterculture effort and
      message a failure. The minority of counterculture participants against
      the giant sea of mainstream culture was just too much pressure for ordinary
      people to sustain.

      There has been and is evidence of the 60's in mainstream.

      We have great food markets and restaurants and organic growers and organic
      dairies and organic product producers that were born out of the period that
      thrive to this today.

      The University educators and scientists continued onward, always have.
      Al Gore was a product of that period. He soldiers on.

      oh oh... gotta go...

    • 2 years ago
  • coolplanet
    • -1
      coolplanet  
    • Weedy_Seadragon:

      Thanks for the pep talk and sorry I'm so jaded!
      Organic gardening has been around for well over 100 years and it is still about 1% of food.
      Solar and wind supplies also about 1% of power in America.
      Al Gore, whom I've deeply admired since he became Senator of TN in the 80s, still has a huge carbon footprint from articles I've read.
      I lived in hippy central -- Mendocino, CA -- for ten years back in the 80s. The few people I knew there taking serious action were members of EarthFirst! who "spiked" and chained themselves to redwoods to prevent them from being clearcut. Everyone else just boycotted, protested and signed endless petitions. It is still this way today except EarthFirst! is gone.
      My friends in Mendocino hold ceremonies each year, placing plaques in honor of activists.
      I often ask them why they are not planting trees instead. They don't like it when I say this and sometimes shun me over it.
      If you consider all the options we have to fight global warming, planting trillions of fast growing conifer trees is still the best way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
      This is still not being done by all the armchair ecologists waiting for big government to take action.

    • 2 years ago
  • tommic
    • -1
      tommic  
    • Weedy_Seadragon:

      i am of that generation, and the boomers conspicuous consumption and attitude that whatever I want I shall have regardless of the implications is overwhelming. The boomers lost what they had once found, by virtue of the love of money over their planet

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • coolplanet:

      Don't fret. I planted Tens of thousands of redwoods all over Mendocino county in the 90s. They can't cut any more old growth at this point because there is no longer a mill big enough to mill them. The growth rate on the coast for plantation trees is very fast compared with the growth rate in the Sierra Nevada's. The soil on the coast allows for easy planting as well compared to the rock further inland.

      I to mourn the loss of the hero Earth Firsters, but I have never agreed with spiking trees. Climbing and camping in them was an incredible way to protest, and it brought some much needed publicity. California needs to lead this nation to a new economic summer by Freeing the weed! I want some durable hemp work pants.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • -1
      JanforGore  
    • Weedy_Seadragon:

      Remember those days as a child, and as volatile as they were I miss them. People got things done and weren't cowed by the likes of phony oil reps on message boards and fat bloviated drug addicts on radio shows. It's actually sad how cowed and brainwashed so many citizens in this country have become.

    • 2 years ago
  • TaGgInUrBlOcKuP
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +6
      Varex_Sythe  
    • I have a few thoughts a to why...

      1) Some of the richest corporations spend money hand over fist not to actually research the phenomenon which is climate change, but to deny it. The cigarette companies did the same thing for decades in an attempt to prove that their product didn't cause health problems. Companies spend so much because it tends to secure them greater profits as long as it is successful.

      2) A fair percentage of the United States populous trusts corporations. Why, I don't rightfully know. Despite the fact that a corporations interest is to make money no fucking matter what, some people tend to think that they are good for the community and wouldn't purposefully do irreparable damage to the environment.

      3) Education. The United States ranks 33rd in reading, 27th in math, and 22nd in science. With lower educational standards come a softer grasp of scientific issues as well as lesser ability to reason critically.

      4) PARTY! The United States has been in a virtual party mode for some decades now. We've had cheap oil, we've been slowly extending our credit in order to be able to afford more stuff without having to pay off what we owe, and we are incredibly, INSANELY, wasteful as a society. The problem is, the party is ending and we don't want it to end yet. For many of us, facing the realities of climate change would be like someone strung out on angel dust realizing that they were dangling over the balcony of a 30th story apartment and that they couldn't really fly.

    • 2 years ago
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • +3
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  
    • Varex_Sythe:

      All true,,, to some degree or other, V.S. But, is there possibly one more reason? For those not left with enough extra to party on, or with, is it possible that while they are working two, or maybe three jobs, in order to feed their children and pay for the ever escalating cost of health insurance, and all the other rising costs of living, that they are simply too exhausted and without any time to watch/read media coverage, let alone attempt to distill fact from fiction?

      Thank you for your efforts, Jan Gore. But let's face facts. Something as big and involved as global warming policies, will not be addressed until we address the larger picture. The larger picture is the continuing rape and pillaging of this country by corporate America, and corporate Americas determination to keep the public uneducated, uninformed, poor, philosophically and religiously divided, and too discombobulated to do anything about it. So, what do you suggest we do about that?

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • treewolf39
    • +3
      treewolf39  
    • JanforGore:

      We can only supply the information. Unfortunately education is a choice at this stage of the game, and many will never read or listen to anything out of their comfort zone. Many people I know do not watch any news. 60% of Americans have a computer at home with only 70% using computers at all. Out of those I think we would be lucky if 15% were honestly searching out truth. The television is where the damage is done. I wish I could think of a way to compel the media to convey science instead of opinion, but opinion is the drug of choice.

      Right wing radio is not helping one bit!

    • 2 years ago
  • NiceN
    • +3
      NiceN  
    • Why? Because corporations still wants the US to be the number one consumer of oil and waste for greed and money.

    • 2 years ago
  • rodstradamus
  • JanforGore
  • IceKat
  • Weedy_Seadragon
  • Weedy_Seadragon
  • noxidereus
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • IceKat:

      I agree, people are allowed to have opinions based on facts.

      Not everyone needs to have the opinion that gravity exists just because of the fact that objects with mass are pulled towards the center of very large masses. In fact, many people can be of the opinion that gravity does not effect them at all; however, I don't think that those people tend to live very long because their opinions put them at deadly odds with the workings of the physical world...

    • 2 years ago
  • JustZ
  • hindotka
  • MizPiz
  • JanforGore
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
  • IceKat
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +1
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • IceKat:

      IceKat? The planet stopped warming years ago?
      What planet of information does yours come from?
      Here, go to this website and see what planet we live on:

      NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

      There resides the raw data. Not opinion. Raw data.
      It shows mean global temperature since the 1880's.

      If you will open you closed eyes a little further and look a little more, you can find
      the parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1970 to the present.

      Then if your eyes are opened far enough, you can find ice core data showing
      the parts per million for the last 100,000 years.

      But of course, you can do nothing and sit on your stupid ass and wait for your death to come knock you the fk out and you won't have to face any of it.

      Gee zuss your kind of stupid is riot.

    • 2 years ago
  • IceKat
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +2
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • IceKat:

      All right IceKat, now your stupid has entered the Blind-as-a-Bat becoming the bat-shit crazy poster onboard.

      The GISS site has exactly the raw data of global mean temperature.
      If you cannot see it right in front of you, you cannot be helped and should be euthanized before reproducing and further bringing down the herd.

      Aiyaah, you're an embarrassing representative for the advancement in science and cultural development of man on earth.

    • 2 years ago
  • noxidereus
  • Weedy_Seadragon
  • IceKat
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • 0
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • IceKat:

      hah ah ah ha hah h aa ha ha.... oh man!
      I show you were to get the raw data, and you come back with transparently altered results. You're just a blatantly tawdry and gross manipulator, bad at it too.

      I'm coming to the conclusion you are a guy posing as a female. No woman can be this stupid. They just are not made that way. Guys however, are dumb dumb. You fit the bill Bob (burned out boy).

    • 2 years ago
  • bluestranger
    • +5
      bluestranger  
    • Look around. The conservatives are in charge. Americans are generally ill informed about most topics that affect our lives everyday. As long as the neo-cons run the show and the teatards call the shots we will continue to be uninformed and misinformed. Topics such as climate change will either not make it to the ears of our or young or have short shrift with a hard right slant. You might not get the government that you voted for but you are promised the one you deserve if you don't vote.

    • 2 years ago
  • TheAmericanPatriot
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +6
      JanforGore  
    • TheAmericanPatriot:

      Excuse me but he was out here thirty years ago in the Senate and House talking about it and putting forth legislation. NO ONE ELSE did anything about it. And this is not about him, but again, the same crowd that has no knowledge of this nor anything else to contribute always fall back on their fall guy. It's the classic diversion.

    • 2 years ago
  • IceKat
  • Weedy_Seadragon
    • +1
      Weedy_Seadragon  
    • TheAmericanPatriot:

      I've lost the care be kind to your kind anymore The American Patriot. You are a fkn liar.

      There's reams of data on Al Gore. Here's a taste teaser of his study and service to America.

      After joining the U.S. House of Representatives in 1983, Gore held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change, and co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste and global warming." He continued to speak on the topic throughout the 1980s.

      In 1990, Senator Gore presided over a three-day conference with legislators from over 42 countries which sought to create a Global Marshall Plan, "under which industrial nations would help less developed countries grow economically while still protecting the environment."

      In 1992 Senator Gore published his first book. Earth in Balance : Ecology and the human Spirit. It was a best selling ground breaker and highly praised by Carl Sagan, Bill Moyers and Time Magazine.

      Gore was one of the Atari Democrats who were given this name due to their "passion for technological issues, from biomedical research and genetic engineering to the environmental impact of the "greenhouse effect."

      On March 19, 1979 he became the first member of Congress to appear on C-SPAN. During this time, Gore co-chaired the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future with Newt Gingrich. In addition, he has been described as having been a "genuine nerd, with a geek reputation running back to his days as a futurist Atari Democrat in the House.

      Before computers were comprehensible, let alone sexy, the poker-faced Gore struggled to explain artificial intelligence and fiber-optic networks to sleepy colleagues."

      Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn noted that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system.

      He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship.

      The Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication.

      24 Jun 1986: Albert Gore introduce S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986. As another example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises."

      As a Senator, Gore began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill") after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet).

      The bill was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway."

    • 2 years ago
1 - 100 of 150
more from Tech:

top videos