THE GUARDIAN Mon 22 Oct 2018 - TRUMP THINKS SCIENTISTS ARE SPLIT ON
- When queried about the most recent IPCC report, Republican lawmakers delivered a consistent, false message – that climate scientists are still debating whether humans are responsible. The previous IPCC report was quite clear on this, attributing 100% of the
global warming since 1950 to human activities. As Nasa atmospheric scientist Kate Marvel recently put it, “We are more sure that
greenhouse gas is causing climate change than we are that smoking causes cancer.”
Donald Trump articulated the incorrect Republican position in an interview on 60 Minutes:
We have scientists that disagree with [human-caused global warming] … You’d have to show me the [mainstream] scientists because they have a very big political agenda
To paraphrase, ‘I know scientists. I have the best scientists.’ And of course Trump thinks he has “a natural instinct for science” which, as astrophysicist Katie Mack noted, is not a thing:
Katie Mack (@AstroKatie)
There is no "natural instinct for science." This is not a thing. There is curiosity, there is exploration, and there is the desire to learn & grow & test one's naive notions against cold hard data. Believing in a "natural instinct for science" is anathema to everything science is
October 17, 2018
Americans badly underestimate the expert climate consensus
Numerous papers have shown that over 90% of climate science experts agree that humans are the main cause of global warming since 1950, and when considering peer-reviewed papers, the consensus exceeds 97%.
And yet as surveys by Yale and George Mason universities have found, only about 15% of Americans are aware that the expert climate consensus exceeds 90%. More recently, the Yale and George Mason team broke down American’s perceived expert consensus by their ‘Six Americas’ categorizations:
The Alarmed are fully convinced of the reality and seriousness of climate change and are already taking individual, consumer, and political action to address it. The Concerned are also convinced that global warming is happening and a serious problem, but have not yet engaged the issue personally.
Three other Americas – the Cautious, the Disengaged, and the Doubtful – represent different stages of understanding and acceptance of the problem, and none are actively involved. The final America – the Dismissive are very sure it is not happening and are actively involved as opponents of a national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
As would be expected, the Alarmed and Concerned have the highest perception of the expert consensus, with the Dismissive having the lowest, and the Disengaged not having much of a clue about the level of agreement. However, the important finding in the Yale and George Mason survey is that even Americans who are Alarmed and Concerned about climate change badly underestimate the level of expert agreement on its human cause.
Perceived expert consensus is a climate ‘gateway belief’
Some have argued that efforts to communicate the consensus won’t work – that Americans’ opinions on climate change simply break down by political ideology (realism on the left, denial on the right) and in our age of ‘alternative facts,’ new information doesn’t change peoples’ beliefs.
However, numerous social science papers have found that the perceived consensus acts as a “gateway belief,” meaning that when people are aware of the high level of expert agreement on human-caused global warming, they’re more likely to accept that reality and support policies to address the problem.
The Yale and George Mason data also support the notion that political polarization isn’t the only problem here. If it were, the Alarmed and Concerned would realize there’s a 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming. Instead, they think it’s only 84% and 73%, respectively. That tells us the 97% consensus figure just hasn’t been effectively communicated to the public, and therefore consensus communication will make a difference.
In fact, a 2017 study showed that communicating the 97% not only increases perceived consensus across the political spectrum, it makes a bigger difference in conservative perceptions and thus shrinks the partisan gap. And in a follow-up study, the scientists showed that consensus messaging also increased acceptance of human-caused global warming, even among conservatives.
Expertise matters, and people rightly trust experts. But of course, that’s exactly why Donald Trump wants to confuse the public about the 97% expert climate consensus. By
will kill millions more people than any terrorist
organisation if we ignore the climate
change threat. We might also overtake the number of people
gassed in concentration
camps during the Second
our view any politician who endorses policies that encourage coal
use instead of renewable energy sources, is playing with fire.
Literally. Based on the evidence of 97% of climate scientists,
anyone denying global temperature change is more than likely
protecting his current business assets or even a near monopoly
than genuinely operating in the belief that burning fossil fuels
is not causing great harm to our environment.
OCT 2018 - Democratic Socialist candidate for the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in a video that reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable energy to fight climate change requires the same urgency and mobilization in the United States as it did to fight Nazi Germany during World War II.
Calling Nazi Germany the last “existential threat” the United States has faced, Ocasio-Cortez ignored more recent threats, including radical Islam’s attack on U.S soil that killed almost 3,000 innocent Americans on September 11, 2001.
“So when we talk about existential threats — the last time we had a really major existential threat in this country was around World War II,” Ocasio said in a video filmed at an undated campaign at an unknown location.
“And so we’ve been here before, so we have a blueprint of doing this before,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “None of these things are new ideas.”
“What we have is an existential threat in the context of war,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “We had a direct existential threat with another nation — this time it was Nazi Germany … who explicitly named the United States as an enemy.”
“And what we did is that we chose to mobilize our entire economy; industrialize our entire economy, and we put hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to work defending our shores and defending this country,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“We have to do the same thing if we’re going to get us to 100 percent renewable energy,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And that’s just the truth of it.”
“It may seem really big. It may seem very ambitious. It may seem very radical,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“But the fact of the matter is we’re dealing with a radical truth and a radical reality and the more that we choose to ignore it the worse we are doing for our children and our grandchildren and frankly ourselves,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
Ocasio-Cortez, 28, became an instant Democratic Party heroine after unseating party caucus chair Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) in New York’s June primary.
Although that victory marks the start of Ocasio-Cortez ’s political career, she is not a newcomer to activism, having volunteered for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in his 2016 presidential campaign. By
WE WERE FIGHTING AGAINST FROM 1939 TO 1945
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 -
person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is
guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the
Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts. However, be aware
that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information
provided. All users should therefore research matters for
themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is
provided simply by way of a guide. Horse Sanctuary Trust UK
All trademarks herby acknowledged.
site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social
justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. FAIR