Have the climate sceptics really won? | Science | guardian.co.uk

The article argues that climate sceptics are not a real problem – that there is sufficient climate consensus, but that there is no popular plan to do something about it. What to do about the problem is a very weak part of the article. But it makes a good point that keep on attacking climate sceptics and repeating to reach “consensus” is highly counterproductive.

Have the climate sceptics really won? | Science | guardian.co.uk.

There is also this article in the guardian on which the previous article is based:  Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made.

Even Barack Obama thinks the research about the scientific consensus on climate change needs re-enforcing:

Here is the link to the abstract of the scientific paper of the survey.

The guardian article get’s interesting in it’s discussion on opinion forming and misinforming:

Several studies have shown that people who are aware of scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was most recently shown by a paper just published in the journal Climatic Change. People will generally defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.

However, vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,

“Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate

This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from US Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories “balanced” with a “skeptic” perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve “balance”, the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what’s causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.

Combined with the natural tendency of people to believe the message that suits them best and that preventing “so called” climate change will come at the cost of the economy and force them to drive a silly minute flimsy uncomfortable vehicle, and that all  government intervention is bad, whereas government measures are the only way to prevent climate change, you come to the USA standoff on the topic today.

Related Post