ICECAP UPDATE
The results of this poll were released in the congressional Energy and Commerce committee which I am told shocked Waxman into a rare silence (at least temporary). They scurried around and accessed and introduced a letter from an editor at Scientific American that said the poll results were biased by blogger influence (allegedly a mention on WUWT). Anthony did refer to it on his blog without pleaing for readers to take any position. On the other hand, Climate Progress’s Joe Romm in a scathing post attacked Scientific American for doing the poll and begged his readers to freep the magazine until they took it down (which they did). Romm questioned the new direction at Scientific American and threatened to drop his subscription. Scientfiic American is a magazine I once subscribed to and enjoyed but long ago dropped because of its staunchly biased stance favoring the alarmist side of the global warming debate - likewise their cable programming. Hopefully the new majority introduced that Romm post to counter Waxman.
Last year, in the senate EPW, Anthony and my paper for SPPI was introduced and took Boxer by surprise, who after retreating behind locked doors came out and announced our paper questioning the data appeared in an organization blog sponsored by big oil - Exxon Mobil and therefore could be ignored. SPPI responded back in a letter that they NEVER received a penny from Exxon, but Boxer etal had moved on. Never let facts muddy up a good story or endanger a chosen direction on public policy.
Hockey Schtick
‘Scientific’ American may regret taking their recent opinion poll on the state of climate science given the eye-opening results cast by their “scientifically literate” readership. With a total of 5190 respondents, a consensus of 81.3% think the IPCC is “a corrupt organization, prone to group-think, with a political agenda” and 75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity. 65% think we should do nothing about climate change since “we are powerless to stop it,” and the same percentage think science should stay out of politics. When asked, “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?,” 76.7% said “nothing.”
Poll results hidden here
Climate of Change?
1. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums?
No, that would play into the hands of the fossil-fuel lobby. 3.0% 157
Yes, it would help engage the citizenry. 90.1% 4,673
Maybe - but only via serious venues like PBS’s the NewsHour and The New York Times. 6.9% 358
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2
2. Judith Curry is:
a peacemaker. 69.1% 3,585
a dupe. 7.6% 392
both. 4.3% 224
I’ve never heard of her. 19.0% 987
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2
3. What is causing climate change?
greenhouse gases from human activity 30.9% 1,602
solar variation 33.1% 1,718
natural processes 75.8% 3,934
There is no climate change. 6.2% 320
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2
4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:
an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts. 18.0% 932
a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 81.3% 4,220
something to do with Internet protocols. 0.7% 36
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2
5. What should we do about climate change?
Nothing, we are powerless to stop it. 65.4% 3,394
Use more technology (geoengineering, carbon capture and storage). 16.7% 865
Use less technology (cars, intensive agriculture). 5.8% 303
Switch to carbon-free energy sources as much as possible and adapt to changes already underway. 29.5% 1,528
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2
6. What is “climate sensitivity”?
the degree to which global temperature responds to concentrations of greenhouse gases 32.6% 1,692
an unknown variable that climate scientists still do not understand 52.2% 2,708
the phrase on which the fate of human civilization hangs 0.6% 30
all of the above 14.6% 758
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2
7. Which policy options do you support?
a carbon tax 15.1% 781
cap and trade (a price on carbon via an overall limit on emissions paired with some form of market for such pollution permits) 8.5% 441
increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development 38.8% 2,015
cap and dividend, in which the proceeds of auctioning pollution permits are rebated to taxpayers 6.6% 343
keeping science out of the political process 65.1% 3,375
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2
8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?
a 50 percent increase in electricity bills 3.8% 195
a doubling of gasoline prices 5.5% 286
nothing 76.7% 3,981
whatever it takes 14.0% 726
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2
Check out the comments as well.