Originally posted by @wildgrass
Biased either way? You clearly don't read stuff before you post the links. black beetle and I both read it, and we don't think it says what you think it says. The majority of respondents selected "Comply with Kyoto" as their logical frame. A direct quote from your reference: "there seems to be consensus that anthropogenic climate change presents a profoun ...[text shortened]... ge".
Please reiterate how you interpret the major conclusions of that study. Did you read it?
I read it. You apparently read only what you wanted to while ignoring what you didn't want to accept. I can see that some people speculated as to why the poll numbers changed over time by saying oil companies "may" have increased skepticism by funding climate skeptics. MAY? My chickens "may" be able to count. That doesn't mean they can, but I'm sure you will believe what you want to believe regardless of facts.
The fact is that the poll showed most people do NOT believe man is the main cause of GW. Some alarmists in denial try to explain it away by alleging the polls are being corrupted without any evidence at all. Apparently your denial is just as bad. If you have a problem with the poll explain specifically what it is. Either you accept it as accurate or you don't. Which is it?
Frame 2: Nature is overwhelming
"The second largest group (24😵 express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature: ‘It is a mistake to think that human activity can change this… It would be like an ant in a bowling ball who thinks it can have a significant influence the roll of the ball.’ More than others, they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives. In their prognostic framing, they do not see any risks. If anything, climate change detracts from more important issues: ‘Why don’t we focus on more urgent issues… 25,000 people die each day due to hunger, malaria …’ They are most likely to speak against climate science as being science fiction, ‘manipulated and fraudulent’. They are least likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled, that IPCC modeling is accurate, and oppose all regulation ‘based on the incorrect assumption that greenhouse gases cause climate change’. They recognize that we should reduce pollution regardless: ‘We need to adapt to climate change, which has been going on for 4 billion years. We need to reduce polluting our planet.’ In their identity and boundary work, they are least likely to list others as allies or prescribe any actions for themselves or others. Significantly, they are more likely to criticize others as unknowledgeable and to describe climate scientists and environmentalists as hysterical: ‘This present hysteria on “global warming” is purely political and has little to do with real science.’ APEGA ‘should educate the public and the government … to counteract media hype and pressure from the green extremists.’"
" Frame 4: Fatalists
‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17😵, diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’ ‘Fatalists’ consider the Kyoto Protocol as ‘too late’ and irrelevant. They are much less likely to support regulation generally, but do also not care about the economy, and are much less likely to express emotions (except for denying responsibility), or use symbolism and metaphors. Fatalists are not convinced that involvement will make a difference and, thus, following Gamson (1992), they do not develop the sense of agency. To the contrary, they seem generally apathetic – ‘How can anyone take action if research is biased?’ They are least likely to speak for themselves, define themselves as experts or admit any professional and ethical responsibilities. Likewise they are least likely to refer to others in a positive or negative way."
Maybe you are not reading what it really says. Speculation is merely speculation. Copy and paste what you think proves something significant if you wish, but if starts with the word "may" it proves nothing at all.
Anthropogenic global warming myth
16 Nov '17 08:59
Back to Top