sda2.jpg

November 16, 2010

Y2Kyoto: A Scientific American Poll Goes Horribly Wrong

Investors Business Daily;

Wouldn’t the followers of Scientific American have a pretty good understanding of what’s really going on with the climate? If a reader poll is any indication, they’re skeptical man is heating the planet.

For years we’ve heard that scientists have reached a “consensus” that the earth is warming due to a greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide emissions resulting from man’s use of fossil fuels. No use in discussing it further, Al Gore and others have said. It’s happening.

Not every reader of Scientific American magazine is a scientist. But the responses of the 7,000 readers (6,767 as of Friday morning) who’ve taken the magazine’s online poll strongly suggest that claims of a consensus are, at best, an exaggeration.

Mischief is important.

Posted by Kate at November 16, 2010 10:14 PM
Comments

"These holdouts are overwhelmed, though, by the 83.6% who agree the IPCC "is a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda."

Yup, it only took 25 years for folks to figure out that an Intergovernmental Panel had a political agenda.

It's sad, really.

Posted by: Oz at November 17, 2010 2:06 AM

That hard core who decades back began the campaign of advancing through the institutions to achieve their New World Order have been perfecting their methodology for decades....through many failed earlier schemes.....peak oil, the population bomb, new ice-age, nuclear winter etc.
Then they hit two home runs in a row.....the tsunami of alarmism hinging largely on "The Inconvenient Truth" and getting the Mau Mau in the White House.
A key part of the scheme was that bogus study that established the myth of the "consensus" which served basically as the authority/evidence of CAGW.
Much like Alinsky's "Rule For Radicals" this was designed and executed following a well thought out script. The only thing scientific about the CO2 scam was the way it was presented....it was really well executed psychological warfare, presented on an extremely broad front.
Part of the preparation was entrenching the belief/trust in the inscrutability/infalibility of science and scientists.
Richard Lintzen discusses the process...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

Posted by: sasquatch at November 17, 2010 3:38 AM

I skimmed through the most recent edition of Scientific American in the supermarket this past weekend.

There was an article about a scientist who is less-than-convinced about the consensus and who is receptive to some of the criticism of skeptics. The article grudgingly admits the lack of consensus and how suddenly open-minded academia has become to dissent. But the article didn't give the dissenters any voice.

The author of the article refers to criticisms which have been thoroughly debunked. Oddly, he doesn't spend any ink explaining exactly what those criticisms are, how they were disproven, and who disproved them. He leaves zero room for rebuttal.

This is the state of the art for Scientific American. They don't really "educate" the reader on any of the issues, but rather provide them with their own talking points. They don't give the reader credit for any intelligence. Their conclusions are packaged for mass consumption.

I'll bet that if you asked Al Gore or Barbara Boxer or Leonardo DiCaprio to discuss the most influential peer-reviewed articles which have shaped their beliefs, they'd drool all over their designer garments. I'll bet they can't name five greenhouse gasses. Algore might be able to name a few climate scientists with whom he's become friends, but I'll wager he can't give a synopsis of any of their papers. I'll wager Boxer and other AGW politicians can't even name one climate scientist, much less describe the science involved.

Posted by: POWinCA at November 17, 2010 3:58 AM

I stopped buying Scientific American a couple years ago due to their insistence that global warming was anthropogenic and a danger. How scientific can you be if you do not understand that carbon based life forms need carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for survival? Or that an extended growing season is beneficial?

Posted by: Al_in_Ottawa at November 17, 2010 6:50 AM

Slow but steady, even the dumbest wake up to the lies.

Posted by: tarpon at November 17, 2010 8:54 AM

tarpon, of more immediate concern to me is that the federal Conservatives and the Sask Party let this fraud die the quiet death it deserves.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at November 17, 2010 9:15 AM

Mop and Pail windbag Simpson has regurgitated a global warming column, along with some nice things to say about Prentice, along with comments about the eeeeeeeeevil PMSH.......a 2 for 1 hit piece on the government. Nice, Jeffy, nice.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-climate-change-file-post-prentice-same-old-same-old/article1801668/

Posted by: DanBC at November 17, 2010 9:29 AM

I would love to see ANY political party, Provincial or Federal Government, finally admit that they no longer support Global Warming/Climate Change. The only one that comes close is the Alberta Wild Rose Party. The leader said that she would look into it and does not believe it.

As long as the Governments can control us, they will NOT deny that this scam exists. One just has to look at the Wind Powered Generator support and millions spent to “save the world from Global Warming/Climate Change.”

(BC has an environmental tax on Gasoline, and it is always about ten cents higher than in Alberta.
http://www.bcgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
For instance: gas today is average of $1.09 in BC and only an average of $0.92 in Alberta.) No, the governments will NEVER deny that they have fallen for the scam of this century … the enviroMENTALists have won this battle – even when the facts prove them wrong. If I am wrong please prove it by mentioning ONE quote from a Provincial or Federal cabinet minister saying that they do not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change is false.

Pollution is an entirely different thing, and Governments should fight that … which they are.

Posted by: Clown Party at November 17, 2010 9:42 AM

I have observed that most things involving humans breakdown in a 20/80 or 80/20 configuration.

It follows that approximately 20% of a population will be mentally or emotionally retarded or just plain stupid. That is the group that will continue to believe that Al Gore and David Suzuki are wonderful and the rest of us are destroying the world by simply living our lives.

Posted by: Abe Froman at November 17, 2010 10:12 AM

Of the 25% certified moonbats, at least 15% will change for the better in the very near future because, Of the same 25%, the majority are still in school and/or under 30 years old. IMO, a 30 year old adult today has about the same wisdom and real life experience as an 15 year old of 50 years ago. Especially of that person was born and raised in a big urban environment.

The true reality check that will put the last nail in the coffin of this nonsense is the worldwide economic depression that's heading towards us at high speed.

There's nothing like having to scratch for your next meal to keep one from perpetual navel gazing and whining about non issues.

Posted by: Right Honourable Terry Tory at November 17, 2010 11:14 AM

I've read Scientific American since I was a child; it is embarrassing to watch it morph into a "climate crank" sheet.

Posted by: John Lewis at November 17, 2010 2:59 PM

I have just looked up "Scientific American" on
Wikipedia. The claim is made that it is now owned
by Nature Publishing Group, the publishers, of course, of "Nature".
Certainly that once-eminent journal has seemed more crass lately, and also fanatical about AGW.

Posted by: John Lewis at November 17, 2010 3:04 PM

I received National Geographic from my parents for years as a Christmas gift. When they came out with their full-on GLOBAL WARMING push several years ago, I asked them to drop the subscription. While the magazine could be thoroughly enlightening and enjoyable, the AGW BS cast a cloud of doubt over the veracity of everything else they published.

Posted by: Mazzuchelli at November 17, 2010 3:44 PM

I received National Geographic from my parents for years as a Christmas gift. When they came out with their full-on GLOBAL WARMING push several years ago, I asked them to drop the subscription. While the magazine could be thoroughly enlightening and enjoyable, the AGW BS cast a cloud of doubt over the veracity of everything else they published.

Posted by: Mazzuchelli at November 17, 2010 3:44 PM

Wouldn’t the followers of Scientific American have a pretty good understanding of what’s really going on with the climate?

Well, no. Why would they?

Posted by: Sigivald at November 17, 2010 5:02 PM

(And to clarify, I don't think the poll response is wrong (about man not causing Global Warming) - I just don't think that SciAm readers are particularly well informed compared to anyone else.

And I also think internet polls are always bull, even when they're bull that agrees with me.)

Posted by: Sigivald at November 17, 2010 5:04 PM

SA became less about science and more about advocacy for 'causes' years and years ago. I leaf through an issue now and then in the grocery store and am amazed at how far the once-respected journal has fallen.

Posted by: Enkidu at November 17, 2010 7:26 PM

Good link sasquatch...I read that, and am impressed with this Lindzens straight talk and common sense [I](scientific.?)[/I] approach. That is was penned in 1992 makes this mandatory reading IMO.

As many here, I am still amazed that this topic is still discussed and pushed in the MSM and by Politicians...

"climate change is the natural order of things..its always been changing..had it not been, we all would be living on a lava lake/volcano filled planet...no?

steak

Posted by: steakman at November 17, 2010 9:53 PM

would someon mind tellin me how you use html here..seems the tags i do know..dont work.??

Posted by: steakman at November 17, 2010 9:56 PM
Site
Meter