"people who use the Internet are more likely to be concerned about global warming"

Really??

Brett, would you say there are more or less people "concerned" about global warming, based on comments.

Reply: Just with the commentators from this blog alone there are less, but this is just one blog. We have always had a much higher proportion of skeptics that post compared to those who believe in AGW on this blog. I do not know what the ratio is in terms of everyone who visits the site, since most do not leave a comment and only read the blog.

I ask, because your site is about as neutral as one can find, and would be a good indicator to the veracity of this study.

So what do you say boss? More or less?

Here's the study (subscription required):

"Media use and global warming perceptions: A snapshot of the reinforcing spirals."

http://crx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/5/698

"Watching more television, however, did not seem to help."

You mean Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck havn't helped advance our understanding of science? No kidding.

"Some media forms have clear influence on people's perceived knowledge of global warming, and most of it seems positive" (Zhao)

Hmmm...I disagree with that. If the media on the whole (not just television) represented the balance of views within the scientific community, much of the public arguably wouldn't be so confused on the subject. The internet and print media is also a source of misinformation on the subject.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

You don't need "Climate Change" in your blog post title.

"Television Has Little Impact on Knowledge" would have been just as accurate.

This is a "global warming" blog yet this is a story about "climate change." So are the evil humans causing global warming or climate change or both? Well, we've had a decade of cooling temperatures with rational, empirical scientists predicting continued cooling for possibly two or three more decades. So it can't be global warming.

It sure is great that politicians and politically-motivated scientists (Hansen/Schmidt/IPCC) can blame every observed change in the climate on human CO2 emissions. That is very convenient for them. The thing is, the phrase "climate change" is redundant. Climate is always changing. It always has and always will.

Anthropogenic "global warming/climate change" due to our use of hydrocarbons is a fantasy. Sure, CO2 has a slight effect on temperature, but the effect is negligible. Politicians, and the scientists they keep in-line with massive grants, have exaggerated, fabricated and/or flat out lied about CO2 and its effects on climate.

America should be repairing and upgrading its existing energy infrastructure which is based on hydrocarbons and exploring the abundant resources available to us. This includes the vast reserves of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite the clear fact that AGW theory has failed and the politicians are lying through their teeth, Barack Hussein Obama is set to sign a new climate treaty in Copehagen. This is an infringement on Americans' liberties and freedoms. Obama will relinquish our sovereignty based on lies. Is our dear leader really on our side?

The article says

"Also, to no surprise, Republicans are more likely to believe that scientists are still debating the existence and human causes of global warming, whereas Democrats are more likely to believe that a scientific consensus has already been achieved on these matters."

Why?

I have noticed that engineers tend to be conservative as compared to liberal arts majors and scientists in general. One possible explanation is that engineers have to take responsibility for how their designs work in the real world. Opinions and feelings don't count for much. Only facts matter. IMO, this tend to make engineers both conservative and sceptical of things that haven't truly been proven and tested.

Is this related to the "to no surprise Republicans ..." statement in the article?

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' also played in role, and as we all know, there are many mixed opinions on that movie.

The reason there were "mixed opinions" on the movie was a concerted, funded, organized, unfair, biased, and intellectually corrupt campaign to discredit it. This worked to a perceived extent because there was an audience for the generated bafflegab that needed to receive this contrived message in order for them to maintain their ability to deny the truth that Gore so effectively described. The points made about "errors" in the movie were fully refuted; the British judge who reviewed the case brought against it found that it was fundamentally correct; qualified climate scientists judged the movie to be an effective and accurate presentation of current climate knowledge. To say that there were "mixed opinions" is to give credence and standing to this unmitigated garbage that it in no way deserves.

Rephrase: Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' also played a role, and as we all know, there are correct and incorrect interpretive positions that have been taken regarding the factual presentation in that movie.

To put it another way, there aren't "mixed opinions" on AIT; there are right opinions and wrong opinions. The wrong opinions are the result of dishonest, propagandistic information.

A nice informal graph depicting where the media is in relation to the most qualified opinions (and others).

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QNv9CPAjNvE/Sb8vgLDlYwI/AAAAAAAAAZA/Au6d2Br3Dpk/s1600-h/GraphCC.jpg

Knuckles,

Just curious but i would love to be apart of the mob, let me know what i need to do to get in! :)

The propagandist LIERS will utiilize any media (who is in their agenda driven court) to their fullest extent, whether it's TV, Print, Internet, or whatever. So it really doesn't make any difference. The problem with most media is the obvious BIAS they expunge, without giving the other side a chance to refute the LIES. Thank GOD we have other media out there that actually gives both sides of an issue and presents the other side. Much to the dismay of the FRAUDULENT LIERS, both on here and elsewhere, I am sure. (but don't worry, all of you little lefties. The President and his band of Cry Babies in the White House will put a stop to that. You just try it.)

Remember. Unless you have a melting glacier in your neighborhood, it's all back yard weather.

Love and Kisses,

Knuckles. Proud member of the MOB.

TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND PRES-I-DENT:
NO! TO CAP AND TRADE. NO! TO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE, WHERE YOU WILL BE PROPERTY OF THE STATE. OR YOU ARE FIRED!!!!!! F-I-R-E-D FIRED!!!!!!!

I am very cocerned about Global Warming, at least the policies that will be imposed because of the percived "opportunity".

MarkB

"You mean Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck havn't helped advance our understanding of science? No kidding."

I guess Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow haven't helped either. LOL

Probably most people watch TV to be entertained, and view escapist type programs, not to be told that they are evil unworthy greedy humans who are going to cause the Earth to burn to a crisp if they don't start paying more taxes NOW and that they had better give up their lifestyle by NOT watching big screen TVs.

MarkB, hmmmmmm, wouldn't be the long lost twin of Steve Bloom.........

@Charlie:

Engineers also have to do something every day that scientists rarely have to address head-on.

We need to assess whether or not a design element will have a real net benefit, either in safety or cost. The cost aspect is slowly being expanded to include a broader range of costs than just a near-term cash outlay.

As a result, we are always assessing whether an an activity or element is likely to accomplish a desired outcome within a reasonable timeframe and cost. If not, then the resources that would have gone to that end will be diverted to another purpose with more realistic opportunities of obtaining a beneficial outcome. Also, where possible, we try to have multiple pathways for loadings to travel so that a failure of a single element will not bring down an entire system. We are very aware that complex system often do not behave the way the models do.

That is why I am focused more on local community and state level actions to prepare those areas for "climate change" instead of a utopian concept of the entire world joining hands, singing "Kumbaya," and cutting global CO2 emissions. The '60s world peace and love movement tried the same thing - while it was a nice thought, ultimately it did not come close to achieving its goal.

While I am fairly agnostic about whether or not man-made CO2 plays a significant role in warming that has definitely since the 1800s, I am quite sure that, when the science is "settled," its role will be substantially smaller than the AGW alarmists have been claiming for the past decade. Also, I question if the models are good enough to account for numerous known and unknown global complexities that need to be accurately resolved in order to have useful, accurate predictive models. Apparently, this skepticism makes me an irrational "denier."

However, I am sure that every locale around the planet will see periods of "climate change," some good and some bad, regardless of whether or not CO2 is the dominant player. That has been occurring since time immemorial.

Instead of diverting precious time and economic resources to some elusive world-wide agreement to lower CO2 emissions that most particpants will cheat on (think sanctions against Korea, Iran, and Iraq), those resources should be focused on making our communities better and safer places to live in ways that will be more resilient against climate change, hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, tsunamis etc. Much of the technology to do this is well-defined - however, the public and political will is lacking.

As I have said in this forum before, building houses on beaches in Florida while focusing instead on getting a global cap-and-trade agreement is the height of insanity. It is this type of bureaucratic and cultural obliviousness that leads to things like the failures of New Orleans levees (if anyone still thinks those levees failed because of global warming, they should go read the numerous engineering forensic reports that are available on the web).

No impact form Television?

No Surprise.
We have had science fiction available on TV for 50 years.

Why would people react differently to it now?

wow, oakden. you really believe that, huh?

Mary writes:

"Probably most people watch TV to be entertained, and view escapist type programs, not to be told that they are evil unworthy greedy humans who are going to cause the Earth to burn to a crisp if they don't start paying more taxes NOW and that they had better give up their lifestyle by NOT watching big screen TVs."

That does sound like something Glenn Beck or perhaps Rush Limbaugh would say - a couple of genuine alarmists attempting to scare the public on emissions reductions. It's all a big bad government plot to take away your SUV!

Knuckle Dragger: "The propagandist LIERS will utiilize any media (who is in their agenda driven court) to their fullest extent, whether it's TV, Print, Internet, or whatever. So it really doesn't make any difference. The problem with most media is the obvious BIAS they expunge, without giving the other side a chance to refute the LIES."

Now, KD you shouldn't be so harshly critical about the material that Fox News (TV), Washington Times (Print), and ICECAP (internet) spread out into the public domain.

Knuckle Dragger: "Thank GOD we have other media out there that actually gives both sides of an issue and presents the other side."

KD, I didn't know you listened to National Public TV along with the History and Science Channels, read scientific research journals from actual science organizations and not political front groups, and regularly click onto the NCDC climate monitoring web site to pull in actual data to conduct your own climate research. I am really surprised.

DON'T GO ALL BALLISTIC ON ME NOW. I AM JUST HAVING FUN LIKE YOU APPARENTLY HAVE HERE ALL THE TIME.

Oakden Wolf;

WoW!.. Was the cool aid good?

You probably still believe in the tooth fairy and the Hokey Schtick too don't you?

Religion knows no bounds.

We keep getting colder and likely will have a glacier sliding down around the Great Lakes, and they keep thinking it is getting warmer? Send some of it here. Oh I forgot, backyard weather again. I am part of the mob I guess, then.

Just curious but i would love to be apart of the mob, let me know what i need to do to get in! :)

REPLY: Hi Nick. Sorry I have not responded sooner. The "mob" is not an exculsive club. The mob is you, is me, and is any American citizen who is FED UP with the lies perpetrated by these lying green tree hugging "scientists," radical environmentalists and their friends in government. Including The House, the Senate, The Obama Administration and their Chicago style brand of politics, and their lap dogs at the EPA (and any other bureaucracy, for that matter that is being over run by COMMUNISTS). You wish to take a stand and join the mob? Write, e-mail and call your local U.S congressman and senators. Harange them. Don't let up. Bombard them. Let them know who they work for. Tell them ENOUGH!!! NO TO GOVERNMENT RUN AMUCK!!!! NO TO THIS CORRUPTION AND CHICAGO THUGARY!!! NO TO CAP AND TRADE!!!! NO TO COPENHAGEN TREATIES!!!! NO TO GOVERMENT CONTROL OF EVERYTHING FROM THE FREE MARKETS TO YOUR HEALTH CARE COVERAGE!!!! NO NO NO!!!! And if they give you a tude, tell them THEY ARE FIRED!!!! You control them. Not the other way around. You are more powerful than them. You and the Constitution of the United States of America. And make sure you tell them that, too. That's how you become a member of the mob, Nick. Good Luck.

"The mob is you, is me, and is any American citizen who is FED UP with the lies perpetrated by these lying green tree hugging "scientists," radical environmentalists and their friends in government."

Let's also not forget that, to join the "mob," you must be anti-environment and anti-science. You must also be supportive of the libertarian anarchist philosophy which nearly obliterated our economy (and was salvaged due to government intervention).

"be supportive of... anarchist philosophy"

Doesn't Mark realize that peaceful protests against this administration were first labeled as "mobs" by Obamas mmm-mmm-media?

"Flourishing polar bears are finally repaying liberals for attempting to destroy the economy on their behalf. Here one testifies in favor of anarchy on the streets of Pittsburgh:"

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/09/polar_bear_test.html

What ideology are these anarchists supporting Mark?

Doesn't Mark realize that peaceful protests against this administration were first labeled as "mobs" by Obamas mmm-mmm-media.

REPLY: Come now, Rich. Didn't you hear. Mark and his band of merry moonbat buddies have the exclusive on protesting. Because they are all in favor of "science" and the "environment." And doing for the common good. Thru higher taxes, big government, a weak national defense, appeasing enemies, and control of every aspect of your life, from your medical coverage to how much meat you eat, and how much money you earn. Why to challenge their nobel intentions is preposterous, and needs to be taken away and silenced. What's the matter with you, Rich???

MMMMMMM....MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMM

LOL

"What's the matter with you, Rich???"

I believe in our founding fathers.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

~ Thomas Jefferson

Philistine, I think you will appreciate this 4 minute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BkKtPCTrg4

Philistine, I think you will appreciate this 4 minute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BkKtPCTrg4

REPLY: MMMMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMMMM!!!!

"Charlie:
The article says

Also, to no surprise, Republicans are more likely to believe that scientists are still debating the existence and human causes of global warming, whereas Democrats are more likely to believe that a scientific consensus has already been achieved on these matters."

Why?

I have noticed that engineers tend to be conservative as compared to liberal arts majors and scientists in general. One possible explanation is that engineers have to take responsibility for how their designs work in the real world. Opinions and feelings don't count for much. Only facts matter. IMO, this tend to make engineers both conservative and sceptical of things that haven't truly been proven and tested.

Is this related to the "to no surprise Republicans ..." statement in the article?"

I am not interested AT ALL in what an engineer has to say about AGW. Putting scientists in the same category as Liberal Arts majors is just plain foolish.