<div dir="ltr"><div><div>The article referenced in the subject heading is pasted in below, so please skip my comments.<br></div><div><br>I have been spending very little time researching climate science recently, in part due to Internet burn out. <br>
<br>I know some people who insist they do not watch "TV," as though expressing a lifestyle choice connected to a political agenda, yet spend a lot of time on the Internet, which is arguably just as full or even more full of garbage as mainstream cable or TV: Internet burnout is just as plausible as TV burnout, and Internet public deception is as plausible as is brainwashing by mainstream media.<br>
<br>But it's as though with some people who might be described as hard core "alternative," if you admit to watching TV, you've been contaminated by conformist propaganda, or something, or are a technological dinosaur living in the dark ages of TV before the Internet. <br>
<br>But a person needs hip boots to wade through the BS on the Internet! Crowdsourcing chaos and misinformation posted by any ol'yahoo with a website or a Facebook et. al. account! Progress?<br><br>Mainstream broadcast media also has serious flaws and shortcomings, but I see no reason I should not watch meaningful content on what some call "TV"<br>
<br></div>But I was just on Weather.com, only to check on the historical data for the daily average high temperatures for the end of April for Moscow, Idaho, and found this surprising article, as named in the subject heading, on the main webpage. A lot of the research referenced in this article I have referenced on Vision2020 numerous times: the Dorian et. al. research, the PNAS "Expert Credibility in Climate Change" research, and the Oreskes research. <br>
<br>This is old research, that in fact very few people have studied, compared to the millions who were listening, as I was, to Rush Limbaugh's AM broadcast radio show just a few days ago, as he announced to his huge audience that "CO2 levels are soaring as the climate is cooling!"<br>
<br></div><div>BS is BS, regardless of how its propagated, Internet or broadcast media!<br></div><div>------------------------------------<br>------------------------------------<br>------------------------------------<br>
</div><div>A picture on the Weather.com website of what looks like maybe Arctic sea ice has the caption "Are you being deceived?" as the first picture of 16 which link to various stories, some of which are Earth Day themed. Clicking on the picture links to the Wunderground.com website for the article pasted in below. If I recall correctly, Weather.com bought Dr. Jeff Masters' Wunderground.com climate/weather website:<br>
<br></div><div>"Are You Being Deceived?"<br></div><div><br><a href="http://www.weather.com/">http://www.weather.com/</a><br>------------------------------------<br></div>Closing the Consensus Gap on Climate Change:<br>
<div><br><a href="http://www.wunderground.com/earth-day/2013/closing-the-climate-change-consensus-gap">http://www.wunderground.com/earth-day/2013/closing-the-climate-change-consensus-gap</a><br><p class="">By John Cook, Ph.D.<br>
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/" target="_blank">www.skepticalscience.com</a></p>
<p>How many climate scientists agree that humans are causing global
warming? If you asked the average person on the street, the response
might surprise you. On average, the general public think less than half
of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. The <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract" target="_blank">reality is 97%</a>. There is a huge gap between public perception of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming and reality.</p>
<p>The consensus gap has real-world consequences. When people correctly
understand that climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming,
they are <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1295.html" target="_blank">more likely to support policy to mitigate global warming</a>.
The consensus gap is directly linked to a lack of public support for
climate action. This underscores the importance of clearly communicating
the consensus and closing the consensus gap.</p>
<p>For over 20 years, opponents of climate action have understood this and attacked the consensus. In 1991, <a href="http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511762154&cid=CBO9780511762154A016">Western Fuels Association conducted a $510,000 campaign</a>
to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)". To achieve this,
they used a few dissenting scientists as spokesmen in order to construct
the perception of ongoing scientific debate. More recently, an <a href="http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/25/0002764212469800.abstract?rss=1">analysis of opinion editorials about climate change from 2006 to 2010</a> by conservative columnists observed that the most common climate myth was "there is no consensus."</p>
<p>A concise summary of the strategy against the consensus is articulated in the <a href="https://www2.bc.edu/%7Eplater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf">infamous 2002 memo to Republicans by political strategist Frank Luntz</a>:</p>
<blockquote>"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global
warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to believe
that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming
will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the
lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate..."</blockquote>
<p>While fossil fuel companies and conservative columnists argue
against consensus, what is the reality? The scientific consensus
manifests in a multitude of ways, just as there are <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm">many lines of evidence for human-caused global warming</a>.</p>
<p>Two recent studies have sought to measure the level of agreement in
the scientific community in different ways and arrived at strikingly
consistent results. A <a href="http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf">2009 study led by Peter Doran</a>
surveyed over 3,000 Earth scientists and found that as the scientists'
expertise in climate change grew, so did the level of agreement about
human-caused global warming. For the most qualified experts, climate
scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research, there was 97%
agreement.</p>
<p>Alternatively, a <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract">2010 analysis led by William Anderegg</a>
compiled a database of scientists from public declarations on climate
change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. Among scientists
who had published peer-reviewed climate research, there was 97%
agreement.</p><p>The consensus on climate change is reflected in the published
statements of prestigious scientific organizations throughout the world.
<a href="http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange-g8+5.pdf">Academies of Science from many countries endorse the consensus view</a>,
as do many prestigious scientific organizations such as NASA, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Royal
Society of the UK.</p>
<p>However, it is worth pointing out that science is not decided by majority vote. This is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Exposing-The-Climate-Hoax-Economy/dp/0983923108">articulated concisely</a> by John Reisman who says: "Science is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. It is evidence that does the dictating."</p>
<p>Scientists must back up their opinions with evidence-based analysis
that survives the scrutiny of experts in the field. This means the
peer-reviewed literature is a robust indicator of the state of the
scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes conducted the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full">seminal study</a>
of peer-reviewed climate research in 2004, surveying the abstracts of
papers from 1993 to 2003 matching the search "global climate change".
Oreskes found that out of the 928 papers, none rejected the consensus
position that humans have caused most of global warming over the last 50
years. </p>
<p>The scientific consensus is robust, manifesting in the peer-reviewed
literature, scientific organisations and surveys of climate scientists.
Unfortunately (although luck had nothing to do with it), there is a
huge gap between perception and reality. This consensus gap is part of
the reason why there is a lack of public support for climate action.</p>
<p>This means closing the consensus gap is one of the low-lying fruit
of climate communication. This doesn't require explaining the
intricacies of radiative physics—we just need to clearly communicate
that climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
How do we achieve this? Ironically, I'll leave you with another quote
from Frank Luntz:</p>
<blockquote>"There's a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it
again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again,
and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that
you're absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target
audience has heard it for the first time."</blockquote><p>------------------------------------------</p><p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></p></div></div>