might think that 97% consensus among the scientific community would motivate our
intelligent US public to demand some sensible changes to energy policies… BUT WAIT…
57% of the public is NOT yet ready to accept the science of man made global
warming. Why not? Because of pseudonews organizations
(Yes Fox and Drudge, I’m
talking about you) promoting the fossil fuel funded, pseudo-science talking points designed to
keep said 57% of the public slumbering on in a mind numbed delusional state of false security. And those
same fossil fuel lobbyists get voters to keep their fossil fuel elected puppets in Washington to
maintain oil, gas, coal, carbon based energy policies at status quo, choking
the atmosphere with CO2 emissions at an unprecedented rate. Frack you if you
don’t fall into line. Sunscreen anyone? Gas mask?
Quoting comment from the study, which you can read here.
"The public perception
of a scientific consensus on man-made global warming is a necessary element in public support for
climate policy (Ding et al 2011).
However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with
57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly
agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012). Read the Pew study here.
Contributing to this
'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of
agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association
conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global
warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the
impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen
(Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated
by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of
providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to
have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004).
While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA
prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK
tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff
and Mansfield 2008).
The narrative presented by
some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of
collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the
number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year'
(Allègre et al 2012). A
systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative
evidence countering this assertion.
The number of papers rejecting man-made global warming is a
miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly
decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on man-made global warming, an
overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract
ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on man-made global warming."
Ding D, Maibach E W, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C and Leiserowitz A 2011 Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement Nature Clim. Change 1 462–5
Oreskes N 2010 My facts are better than your facts: spreading good news about global warming How Do Facts Travel? ed M S Morgan and P Howlett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 135–66
Boykoff M T and Boykoff J M 2004 Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press Glob. Environ. Change 14 125–36
Boykoff M T 2007 Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006 Area 39470–81
Boykoff M T and Mansfield M 2008 ‘Ye Olde Hot Aire’: reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid pressEnviron. Res. Lett. 3 024002