On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:30:38 +1100, "Mr Robot"
wrote:

Climate change an issue in Canada: Survey

Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press
CBC News
Feb 22, 2011 7:14 PM ET

Far more Canadians than Americans believe climate change is real.....


Perhaps because:

http://wwf.ca/conservation/global_warming/impact/

Start extract

Canada has been warming at a rate substantially greater than the
global rate, with average annual temperatures increasing by 1.2º
Celsius between 1948 and 2005. In some parts of Canada, temperatures
have even gone up by 2º C or more

End extract

This difference may occur because blocking of infrared heat by CO2
will cause warming of the atmosphere at ground level, but cooling at
higher altitudes.

That would cause increased convection.

That would allow greater flows of warm air from the USA to Canada and
of cool air from Canada to the USA.

So Canada would experience both the direct effect of AGW and
additional warming due to convection, whereas in the USA the direct
effect of AGW would be partially cancelled by the greater convection.

In sci.skeptic Surfer wrote:
....
Start extract
Canada has been warming at a rate substantially greater than the
global rate, with average annual temperatures increasing by 1.2?
Celsius between 1948 and 2005. In some parts of Canada, temperatures
have even gone up by 2? C or more
End extract
....

The average rate of climate change *may* have something to do with it.

But there are also parts of the US that have significant rates of
warming, yet are not known for at -- least their legislatures' -- acceptance
of even basic GW, let alone the connection with human activities.

Maybe the critical diff turns on "cultural differences". E.g.
international education comparisons and belief in angels.

--
[pain trumps unconsciousness:]
In your ER apparently you treat gallstones before asystole.
It depends upon how long the asystole state has been, doesn't it.
-- John Stafford , 08 Dec 2010 14:39:38 -0600

On 23 Feb 2011 03:34:08 GMT, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by :

In sci.skeptic Surfer wrote:
...
Start extract
Canada has been warming at a rate substantially greater than the
global rate, with average annual temperatures increasing by 1.2?
Celsius between 1948 and 2005. In some parts of Canada, temperatures
have even gone up by 2? C or more
End extract
...

The average rate of climate change *may* have something to do with it.

But there are also parts of the US that have significant rates of
warming, yet are not known for at -- least their legislatures' -- acceptance
of even basic GW, let alone the connection with human activities.

Maybe the critical diff turns on "cultural differences". E.g.
international education comparisons and belief in angels.

I'm curious to know why either public opinion or
legislatural acceptance is considered to be relevant to the
question.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

....
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 23 Feb 2011 03:34:08 GMT, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by :
I'm curious to know why either public opinion or
legislatural acceptance is considered to be relevant to the
question.
....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_o..._for_evolution

Evolution, creationism and scientific literacy

The US has one of the highest levels of public belief in biblical or other
religious accounts of the origins of life on earth among industrialized
countries.

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other
groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy
and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political
issues. The subject is primarily contentious in the United States. However, it
is also important in other countries where creationists advocate the teaching
of creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, or portray the modern
evolutionary synthesis as an inadequate scientific paradigm.

Although in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement
that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus
supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute, creationists
have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and
disagreement over the validity of evolution.

The Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design lobby group located in the
United States, funded heavily by Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a right wing Christian
reconstructionist millionaire, also claims that because there is a significant
lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their
campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly every scientific society,
representing 100s of 1000s of scientists, has issued official
statements disputing this claim and a petition supporting the teaching of
evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners. Additionally,
US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and
against teaching creationism, in numerous cases.

Scientific support

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports
evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for
observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and
others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of
480k US earth and life scientists) ... give credence to
creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy,
professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9% of scientists
accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of
scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified
themselves as creationists.

Creationist disputes over the scientific support for evolution

Creationists strongly dispute the fact that there is overwhelming support for
evolution in the science community. One of the 1st attempts to provide
evidence that there were substantial number of scientists who disagreed with
evolution was a pamphlet produced by the Institute for Creation Research in
1971 entitled "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation" This pamphlet has been
reprinted several times. Skeptics have claimed that this list of 21 creation
supporters is misleading since it includes 5 people with PhDs in
engineering, 3 in education, 2 in theology, 2 in biochemistry, one in
physics, one in chemistry, one in hydrology, one in entomology, one in
psycholinguistics, one in food science technology, one in ecology, one in
physiology and one in geophysics; and therefore only a small minority had
qualifications related to evolutionary biology.

United Kingdom

A 2006 UK poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to
choose between 3 different explanations for the origin of life: 22% chose
(Young Earth) creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected
evolution theory (with a divine role explicitly excluded) and the rest did not
know. However, the poll lacked nuanced survey techniques and equivocated on
origin definitions, forcing participants to choose between only these options
(which notably excluded theistic evolution). Hence its results are not
necessarily an accurate survey of the views of the UK public.

Australia

A 2009 poll showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe "the biblical
account of human origins" over the Darwinian account. 42% of
Australians believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of
life, while 32% believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God".

A 2010 survey conducted by Auspoll and the Australian Academy of Science found
that almost 80% of Australians believe that evolution is currently
occurring. 10% stated they do not believe in evolution, and a further 11% were
not sure.

United States

1997 Gallup Poll results

US Group Young Earth Creationism Belief in God-guided evolution Belief
in evolution without God
Public 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

The US has one of the highest levels of public belief in biblical or other
religious accounts of the origins of life on earth among industrialized
countries.

According to a 2007 Gallup poll, about 43% of American believe that "God
created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the
last 10k y or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in
a 2006 Gallup poll. Only 14% believed that "humans being have developed over
millions of y from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in
this process", despite 49% of respondents indicating they believed in
evolution. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only
22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. A 2000
poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt
that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.

Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1998 published the results of a survey of
the members of the US National Academy of Science showing that 93% of the
respondents did not believe in a personal God.

Gallup Poll

Political identification % do not believe in evolution % belief in evolution
Republican 68 30
Democrat 40 57
Independent 37 61

2005 Pew Research Center poll

Political identification% Creationist% belief in evolution
Republican 60 11
Democrat 29 44

A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70% of evangelical Christians felt
that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of
Catholics and 32% of mainline Protestants shared this opinion. A 2005 Harris
Poll estimated that 63% of liberals and 37% of conservatives agreed that
humans and other primates have a common ancestry.

Evolution, creationism and scientific literacy

A 1997 study found that fewer than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific
literacy and a People for the American Way poll found that less than half
(48%) of those polled chose the correct definition of evolution from a
list. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe
they share less than 1/2 their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure
is between 95-99% depending on the primate and comparison method.

Steve Sailer has pointed out that it is not clear how firmly public beliefs in
creationism are held. Most creationist claims require a literal reading of
Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy, while a 2006 study by the Baylor
Institute for Studies of Religion found only a minority of those polled
believed in the literal truth in the Bible.

MYREF: 20110224061454 msg201102247482

[102 more news items]

---
[A]ll science is lies and the only thing we can trust is right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100

....
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 23 Feb 2011 03:34:08 GMT, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by :
I'm curious to know why either public opinion or
legislatural acceptance is considered to be relevant to the
question.
....

Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed on the Topic of Climate Change?

The media, under-education or denialism

Scientists and journalists debate why Americans still resist the consensus
among research organizations that humans are warming the globe

Robin Lloyd
Scientific American
Feb 23, 2011

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 US.

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 Fri
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 2 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% 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 S Korea, there is no doubt about
the findings of climate science, said Sun-Jin Yun of Seoul National
University. All 3 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
US 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 2
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.

He advised scientists similarly to make sure their points are very clear and
to avoid giving climate deniers an opportunity to extract a phrase from ones
communications or answers to questions that fits an anti-science theme.

In fact, Thomas Lessl of the University of Georgia called science
communications "naïve" and said the entire enterprise of communicating science
about climate change needed to be reformed. More information will not
help. "Personal knowledge always trumps technical knowledge in public
communication," he said.

Some of Rosensteil's advice echoed that as he reminded the audience that
interviews are entirely on the record and that they are not conversations.

"One way of doing that is to be like a politician and answer what you want to
answer and not answer fully what they have asked," he advised. Also, "if you
feel thee question is loaded, give them the answer that you would have given
if the question were not loaded."

Schmidt suggested that further public engagement to fill in the gaps in
understanding between the soundbites and the scientific literature would be
useful, but that there are no guarantees.

Emanuel offered the familiar explanation for why some scientists are allergic
to public forums: "There's an attitude in our culture that if we're doing
outreach...we may be engaging in a kind of advocacy that is poisonous to
science."

Optimism prevailed regarding the role of journalists and scientists in better
communicating climate change in the future. There will be more reporting and
it will be more accurate in the future, but the current media landscape may be
the ultimate decider, Emanuel said.

"Fourth estate reporting will get better," he said. "The fact that we're here
today is an indicator of that. At the same time, the availability of the
Internet soapbox will ensure that the amount of background noise will go
up. I don't see any way of preventing that."

MYREF: 20110224063317 msg2011022426880

[101 more news items]

---
So you really, really believe that our universe just came about by
sheer chance? I prersonally, find that extremely hard to accept.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 11 Jan 2011 15:02 +1100

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:49:38 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Mr Robot" :

Bob Casanova wrote:

I'm curious to know why either public opinion or
legislatural acceptance is considered to be relevant to the
question.

Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed on the Topic of Climate Change?

Many of us aren't; HTH.

Again, why is either public opinion or legislatural
acceptance considered by anyone who understands science to
be relevant? What is, is; opinion doesn't change fact.

snip
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless