If you have ever used one of these as evidence of MAN MADE global warming, then you have no idea what science is. As we all know, ice caps have grown and shrank for thousands of years. You must prove man has some part in it. This has never been done. As for the polar bears, that entire theory is crap. And as far as consensus, if that is your idea of scientific evidence, then maybe you should stick with Highlights magazine as it is more your speed. etc, etc.

The timing on your question is great. I’ve been looking at the profiles of those that come here and repeatedly say that climate change isn’t a reality. One of the common traits they display is that the bulk of them are very fundamentalist. I’m not sure why this is a factor, but find it very interesting.

Is it tied to education (or lack there of)? Up bringing? Geography? Or does faith even play a role in denying climate change?

I do think Y!A isn’t reflective of North American society as a whole though. On the issue of climate change this site is VERY polarized (pardon the pun). My guess is that at the least, some 30-40% of the general population still is unsure about climate change. Good news though, I think more are ending up in the camp that something bad is happening then in denial, with each passing day. So at least our numbers are growing.

And the ones we get seem to be the brighter out of the bunch!

1. I would say about forty % of everyone (global warmer supporters included). Some may be confused between the two because they choose to believe only what they want. (they live in the present only). Some just forgot, most don’t care. They do not

2. You answered this with your first statement. because close to 40 % obviously do not know the difference between weather / climate and/or do not care.

3. Again a partly redundant question, so I’ll give a redundant answer. 40% of breathing people do not know the difference between weather / climate and/or do not care. Local & global weather or climate.. Past and present weather or climate. I will assume you mean climate being you are pushing your opinion so radically. I would say eighty percent of breathing humans above the age of 16 know the difference between local and global climate changes. Past or present? this one is the most difficult to prove and/or to predict. I would say only fifteen to twenty percent know about the past warming and cooling cycles in the climate. Most of this percentage are students that paid close attention to the teachers/professors and are aware of the importance of recycling and conserving resources.
The present is obviously still in a warming trend.

You failed to mention the future. This is where the great divide is. I do believe we are warming. I just do not think it is mostly our fault. It is my opinion that this is a normal warming cycle and we are a very small contributor that may or may not effect the peaks between these cycles. I still await factual proof for this.

4. Assuming you can read everyones mind, about as likely as AGW. I think this question is not a valid question due to the extreme bias and obvious disregard for considering anything but political chaos around AGW.

We must recycle, conserve and preserve either way this works out.

I have one more redundant answer to your second statement that may help some with open minds:

I think for the most part, the discussion on (Global Warming) is much like our modern day court system. Both sides just try to prove their side.hundred of websites all claiming to disprove the other, or no real proof. Both sides have extreme activists. Money and politics are major players, and the right thing or the moral thing to do is not high on priorities.

The only difference is that the global warming issue has no definitive answer equivalent to jury and /or Judge.. only time holds our future or fate.

I believe we have a responsibility to conserve energy, preserve our environment and recycle everything that is feasibly possible.

I do not believe that we are causing a doom & gloom warming catastrophe. I do know that we need to prepare now by conserving energy, preserving nature and preparing for the next climate change.

Please don’t form your opinon from this forum. To many close minded “hot heads” with no real proof to back their doom & gloom.

Geez, Dana. You don’t seem to care when mindless people say “It’s hot where I live so global warming must be real!” Now you try to act like all skeptics think this way. You know it is not true.

I have found the skeptics to be better informed than the typical mindless believer in AGW.

Bravo Richard, that was great!

f ‘(x)=3x^2+6x+2

As far as what it tells me about the AGW deniers, it tells me that some are misinformed. But the AGW movement, is as guilty about being misinformed, look the computer models used to “PROVE” global warming. ALL of them so far have been wrong. NOBODY has accurately modeled the climate, but I hear time after time how the models have proven AGW. I’ve seen bad data used by the IPCC, the same IPCC that has been accused of falsifying data and destroying evidence. If a “denier” had the same charge leveled against them how much faith would someone, anyone put in their work?

The same AGW crowd who won’t debate the evidence, after all it’s settled science, never mind that the science is never settled. Never mind that the IPCC stopped looking at the science in about 2005. The same AGW crowd when faced with evidence that their data was wrong say you sold out to big (insert company here). Never mind that more and more of the scientist from the IPCC are now saying CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming. Once they do that then suddenly they aren’t real scientist, when they agreed with AGW they were good enough, but now they are disagreeing with AGW suddenly they’re not good enough.

If you continue to push then you get threatened,

It makes you wonder what AGW people are afraid of; someone questions man-made global warming and they want to take their livelihood away? Strange I always though science was a place to ask questions and to try and destroy theories, but I forget man-made global warming is part of the NEW science, you know draw your conclusions first, ignore any data that doesn’t fit the conclusion and threaten people who disagree with you.

# doubters who confused weather with climate: 4
# realist who confused weather with climate: 0

# doubters who attacked Al Gore: 1
# realist who praised Al Gore: 0

# doubters who linked to opinion pieces or partisan think tanks: 2
# realist who linked to opinion pieces or partisan think tanks: 0

Well this is a small sample set, I think it does show the desperation and confusion of the doubters. The frequency with which they confuse weather with climate and think Al Gore is the originator of concern over AGW does seem to surpass the confusion from the realist side.